Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND AND WALES (REFERENDA) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before calling the hon. Gentleman to move the Second Reading of his Bill, may I make two observations?
It will help the Chair to secure a balanced debate if those who wish to speak will let the Chair know whether they wish to speak in support of or in opposition to the Bill.
Many hon. and right hon. Members wish to speak. I shall be able to call a good number only if those who are called speak reasonably briefly.

11.5 a.m.

Mr. James Davidson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
First, I want to clear up some misconceptions about the purpose of the Bill. It is explicit in the Long Title, which is not very long, and which I shall read. It is a Bill
To authorise referenda in Scotland and in Wales to enable the Scottish and Welsh peoples respectively to indicate their views in regard to the future government of their countries; and for purposes connected therewith.
The words "to indicate their views" have been very carefully selected and they show that this is clearly not an attempt to by-pass Parliament or to resort to government by referenda.
This is not an attempt to take the initiative from the Government's hands. The results of the referenda would undoubtedly put the Government under a strong moral obligation to carry out the

wishes of the people, but it would not remove the initiative from their hands. It was said in an article that appeared in The Times that this was a Liberal attempt to make a concession to the Nationalists. I deny this categorically. It is nothing of the sort.
Perhaps I should remind the House that Home Rule has been part of Liberal policy for over 60 years; that approximately 20 years ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) made his maiden speech on self-government; that two years ago my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) introduced a Bill for self-government, and that a year ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) introduced a Bill for federal government. To pretend that the Bill is some sort of concession to a very significant movement is quite wrong; it is a straightforward attempt to find out what form of government would be most acceptable to the majority of the peoples of Scotland and Wales—nothing more and nothing less.
It has been said that this opportunity is given to the electorate at the time of a General Election, but I beg to differ. At the time of a General Election most people vote either for a personality or for a party label. The least thoughtful reduce it to a choice between the somewhat distorted images of the party leaders which filter through their television sets.
Those who vote for a party label have to accept the package that is attached to it, whatever its shape or size. In the Conservative and Socialist packages the constitutional issue of self-government for Scotland or Wales is lost among a galaxy of glittering political bargains of one sort or another. Only in the Liberal package has it loomed at all large; the Nationalists have not yet fought on a broad enough front to gain wide electoral support.
It seems to me and many others that there is a clear case for giving the peoples of Scotland and Wales the opportunity to express their views on this single electoral issue by means of referenda. First, we must establish whether the Scots and the Welsh people have the will and the desire to govern themselves. Then it should be up to those with party political power at the moment to work out the


ways and means of implementing the wishes of the people.
I am well aware that there are hon. Members present who are opposed in principle to the idea of referenda. I accept that they may have sincere views, but I put it to them that this Bill does not create a precedent. It seeks to deal with a unique case; the first major constitutional issue to arise in the British Isles since the Irish question. No one can doubt for a moment that the issue has arisen. We have living evidence of that on the bench behind me. The Government have conceded that the question exists by setting up, or aiming to set up, the Crowther Commission on the Constitution, albeit with the introduction of a notable restriction of its terms of reference since the Queen's Speech.
The Unionists have conceded it by appointing their own private enterprise commission under the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home). For far too long statistical arguments have been flung back and forth between the various proponents of Home Rule and those who are against it, but the statistics are incomplete. We cannot provide proof because the figures simply are not available. The time has clearly come to allow the people of Scotland and Wales to speak for themselves. Financial arguments are completely pointless. If a young man is determined to learn to fly, it is no good telling him that he would be better off as a junior partner in a stockbrokers firm for he will want to learn to fly nevertheless.
It is fairly well known in the House that this Bill in its drafting adheres very closely to the Gibraltar (Referendum) Order, 1967. I make no pretence that it does anything else. Presumably that Order was drafted by the Government and has the Government's approval. I happened to be the first Member of this House to propose a referendum for Gibraltar, in a Parliamentary Question on 4th August 1966, but at that time the proposal was rejected by the then Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations, now the Postmaster-General. He said:
I do not believe that any form of referendum would be helpful at present. Adequate arrangements exist for the people of Gibraltar to make their views known through their elected representatives."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th August, 1966; Vol. 733, c. 157.]

I put the idea forward again on 7th February, 1967. This time the Government in the person of the right hon. Lady who is now Paymaster-General rejected it once again, but only four months later the right hon. Lady announced that after all a referendum would be held. She said:
In doing so we must have regard to the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular Article 73 which expresses the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of a non-self-governing territory are paramount.
She was referring to the Article which places a duty on member nations:
to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement.
Article 1(2) stated the main purpose of the U.N. to be:
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.
It may be recalled that when the United Nations rejected the result of the Gibraltar Referendum, the British Government representative, the noble Lord Lord Carradon, roundly chastised the delegates and quoted from Article 73 of the Charter.
Gibraltar is by no means the first British precedent for a referendum on a constitutional issue. Both Malta and Newfoundland decided their form of Government by this method. Newfoundland, for instance, was constituted a dominion at the Imperial Conference in 1917, but encountered such grave financial difficulties that its dominion status was suspended in 1933. A Royal Commission recommended that the territory should be administered by a Commission of Government, with three commissioners from the United Kingdom and three from Newfoundland. At the referendum in July, 1948, the electorate of the territory had the choice of responsible government as prior to 1933, confederation with Canada, or continuation of Commission of Government, with the opportunity of stating its first and second preferences.
Following the transfer of second preferences, the third alternative having been eliminated, the result was a narrow majority—approximately 7,000 votes out


of a total of 150,000—in favour of confederation. Accordingly, Newfoundland became a Province of Canada on 31st March, 1949.
I will not bore the House with a whole lot more precedents for referenda, but it must be well known that the Republic of Ireland has twice in the last 10 years held referenda on constitutional issues—in 1959, and again in 1968. On both occasions the people of the Republic of Ireland voted overwhelmingly to retain their system of proportional representation.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why has the hon. Member omitted from the issues to be raised in the referendum giving the people of Wales and Scotland an opportunity to vote for a republic, as Ireland has done?

Mr. Davidson: When the Bill reaches Committee stage that would be a suitable subject for an Amendment.
In Australia and the United States of America and Switzerland, three countries noted for their democratic forms of Government, referenda are frequently used. There are other examples but I am not trying to plead the case for government by referenda. That is not my intention. I am pleading the case for the use of a referendum on a major constitutional issue which has not arisen before.
The 31 Commissioners who represented Scotland in the negotiations leading to the Act of Union, 1707, were hardly representative of the ordinary people of the country. Incidentally, the same Act of Union refers to Wales as "the Dominion of Wales". I will quote from a brief on the Treaty of Union prepared by the House of Commons Library:
Many Scotsmen hoped for a federal rather than a unitary state, but the Scots Commissioners soon realised that this would be an unacceptable basis of negotiation for Queen Anne's Ministers because one of their main objectives was to commit Scotland irrevocably to the Hanoverian succession and to leave no legislative body in Scotland which might put forward a moral even if not a legal claim to re-open the question upon the death of the Queen.
That is from a book entitled "Thoughts on the union between England and Scotland (1920)," written by A. V. Dicey and

R. C. Rait, who incidentally were Englishmen.

Miss Harvie Anderson: That book was written by one of the most distinguished Scots historians of this century, Principal of Glasgow University.

Mr. Davidson: I bow to the hon. Lady's superior knowledge. The Scottish names are not well known and I assumed that they were English.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member will leave the Act of Union and Scots names and get back to the referenda.

Mr. Davidson: I shall do so, Mr. Speaker, but the intervention did not in any way undermine the validity of my argument. [Interruption.] I would ask hon. Members to treat this seriously, because while they may not consider it a serious matter it is a very serious matter for the people of Scotland and Wales.
To come to the Bill itself, it does not need a great deal of explanation. It is very short and it is very simple. It offers the people of Scotland and Wales four clear choices:
to leave the existing system of government unaltered; to devolve additional powers and functions to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and to the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees of the House of Commons; to establish domestic Parliaments in Scotland and Wales having jurisdiction over all internal affairs and with federal status within the United Kingdom;
and fourthly,
to have complete independence within the British Commonwealth, including sovereign control over foreign and commonwealth relations, defence, and customs and excise.
The Bill provides that the referenda would be held within six months of the Queen's assent to the Bill. Naturally, there would be separate referenda for Scotland and Wales. The results in one country would not necessarily bind the other.
The responsibilities of the Secretaries of State are defined. They would have to fix the dates of the referenda; they would appoint the referenda administrators for the conduct and organisation of the referenda; they would make regulations for the method of voting, subject to the provision that voters would have to state their views in order of preference so that there could be no possible


ambiguity in the formulation of the results; they would decide when and how the results would be published.
The Bill goes on to make various legal provisions for appeals and penalties. As for eligibility for voting, this would coincide precisely with eligibility for voting at a General Election. Clause 3 states:
A person shall be eligible to vote if, and shall not be so eligible unless, on the appointed date, he would have been eligible to vote in Scotland or in Wales at a parliamentary election.
The Bill goes on to define the functions of the referenda administrators and other matters of detail. I particularly wish to draw attention to the fact that provision has been made in the Bill for observers to be appointed by the Commonwealth Secretary-General to see that the referenda are properly conducted.
I next turn to the matter of cost. I have noted that a number of Parliamentary Questions have been tabled on related costs of counting votes at General Elections and so on and so forth, but I would counsel caution in this matter. It is very difficult to make comparisons. For example, it would be quite invalid to compare the cost of the referendum in Gibraltar, which was just over£5,000, and to blow that up by 70 to give the figure for Scotland, because obviously, in a referendum such as the one in Gibraltar the overheads would form a higher proportion of the total cost than a referendum on a larger scale.
I myself have made a rough estimate of the total cost at something under£40,000 in Scotland and Wales and I will state in a minute how I arrive at that figure. This, of course, is a mere drop in the bucket compared with what is annually spent by the Government for assistance on the Arts Council or for the upkeep of historic buildings. Or, to put it in another context, it is the cost of a medium-sized farm on very poor land.
My calculations are based on a postal ballot which would be undoubtedly the cheapest. They do not include costs of postage: I assume the Postmaster-General would be co-operative. They do not include Purchase Tax on the cards and envelopes used. I have calculated that in Scotland 1,460 working weeks of five days

would be required, or a staff of about 120 for three months, to dispatch the ballot cards and to count them on return and to formulate the results.
The figures work out as follows for Scotland with an electorate of about 3½million: the voting cards—and this is based on an actual quotation from a printing firm—20s. per 1,000, which is£3,500; envelopes, twice as many, an envelope being required for sending and another for returning a card, 15s. per 1,000, or£5,250; 1,460 working weeks, at£10 a week—and I am assuming that retired people of suitable calibre will be willing to carry out this sort of job—£14,600. It is interesting to compare that with the cost of counting the votes in Scotland at the last General Election. According to an Answer given by the Secretary of State for Scotland to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar), the cost was£8,566. I am allowing for a salary of£2,000 for the administrator in Scotland for six months. The total is£25,350. I am assuming that in Wales, with an electorate approximately half of that of Scotland, the cost would be a further£13,000. That gives a grant total of just under£40,000. Incidentally, I have been offered the use of 200 voting machines for nothing—which might be a way of reducing the costs, if they were used in the counting centres.

Mr. Denis Coe: Would the hon. Member tell the House whether he has considered and included the cost of giving to the electorate information on the points involved? On the question of the postal vote, has he tried to work out what sort of return he expects to get in percentage terms?

Mr. Davidson: To answer the second part of that question first, that would be guess work. One cannot possibly guess in advance what percentage of return one would get. As to the first part of the question, the answer is, definitely not, because there is no doubt about it that all political parties would be interested in certain answers being given to the questionnaire. In the event of a referendum being held, such as that held in Gibraltar, or Newfoundland, or elsewhere, the proponents of various solutions would certainly find the spare time, energy, and money for putting forward various solutions and arguments.

Sir John Gilmour: Has the hon. Member considered putting any limit on what an organisation can spend in influencing people on the way to vote?

Mr. Davidson: If the hon. Member will read the Bill he will see that provision is made for the Secretaries of State to answer that problem. A wide measure of power is given them to cover these sorts of administrative details.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: Mr. Ian MacArthur (Perth and East Perthshire) rose—

Mr. Davidson: I am not giving way again. Before the debate started I decided I would give way half a dozen times. I have given way a half dozen times already. Many hon. Members wish to take part in this debate and so I will not give way again.
I want now to deal with certain other criticisms which have been made of the Bill. There has been some criticism of the wording of the choices offered in Clause 1. I can only say that these were framed with considerable care and in an endeavour to be fair to all points of view. The Unionist idea of a Scottish Assembly was not included because nobody has yet said what it means. We do not know whether the "Broadstairs Assembly" would be elected or appointed, nor what it would do. I believe that these possibilities are adequately covered by Clause 1(1)(b). In any case—I made this point in a letter to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell)—there will be ample opportunity to amend the wording of the Clause to cover any areas of opinion which have been neglected. There is no wish on our part to restrict the choice.
Another criticism is that it has been suggested that the Bill is an attempt to pre-empt the findings of the Crowther Commission. I put it to the House that the very contrary is the case. The results of the referenda in Scotland and in Wales could be of the greatest assistance to the Commission. Or am I wrong in assuming that the purpose of the Commission is to find ways and means of implementing the wishes of the people? Perhaps I am too much of an optimist. Incidentally, at the present rate of progress there is some danger of the Commission's findings being pre-empted by the four horsemen of the Apocalypse.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The hon. Gentleman referred to having written to me. I hope that he will say more about Clause 1(1)(c) which proposes a vague federal system. Is England to be a single unit in such a federal system and, if so, is it to have the same weight of voting as Scotland and Wales; or is England to be divided into several federal units, and if so, will the English be given an opportunity to decide on that first?

Mr. Davidson: The short answer is, not within this Bill, which is a Bill to give referenda to the people of Scotland and Wales. The other points the hon. Member has raised are strictly matters for Committee.
I warn those hon. Members who intend to oppose the Bill that, although they may be able to make out a case against it sufficiently strong to calm their own fears, they will have great difficulty in convincing their constituents that they, the voters, should not be given the opportunity to express their views on the outcome of deliberations in Commissions and elsewhere about the future government of Scotland. The people of Scotland will feel very strongly that they want to express their own views on this matter.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Mr. Donald Dewar (Aberdeen, South) rose—

Mr. Davidson: I am sorry, I cannot give way, but the hon. Gentleman may be successful later in catching Mr. Speaker's eye.
Last week, in the City of Edinburgh, I had a random poll carried out, in the course of which 621 dwellings were visited, including tenements, council flats, older council houses and detached houses in various income categories. Edinburgh is not noted for its Liberal sympathies, yet 85 per cent.—

Mr. Dewar: Who carried it out?

Mr. Davidson: It was carried out by Liberals which, if anything, gave a distinct bias against the results obtained—[Laughter.]—perhaps hon. Members would silence their laughter for a moment and listen, and they will then be able to draw their own conclusions. Eighty-five per cent. of those from whom answers were obtained—that is, over half the dwellings visited—were in favour of the


Bill and only 15 per cent. were against it. This compares accurately with the figures given in The Scotsman of overwhelming support for a referendum. I will not attempt to forecast the results of the referenda, but I am convinced that the vast majority of people in Scotland and Wales would like to take part in a referendum, and I will guarantee that if the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) were to have an opinion poll carried out in his constituency he would get much the same result.
What are the opponents of the Bill frightened of? Are they frightened of doing something new, something radical? Are they frightened of stimulating nationalism? Are they frightened of allowing people to express their views on a single issue?—or, perhaps they are frightened of the Whips of their own parties.
If the results of the referenda show majorities in favour of independence, then that is surely the will of the people. If the results show a preference for federal status, or for some form of devolution, then the Crowther and Douglas-Home Commissions will have a clear signpost to help them. But if a majority want no change, that will finish the S.N.P. and Plaid Cymru, and it will sweep away one of the main planks of the Welsh and Scottish Liberal Party policy. We on this bench are prepared to accept the verdict of the Scottish and Welsh peoples. We shall see during the debate which hon. Members of other parties are prepared to do the same.
We have carefully noted and will continue to note that, although the date of this debate has been known since the end of November, and this is the first opportunity in the life of this Parliament for a debate on this subject, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales are not present, the Ministers of State for Scotland and Wales are not present, and a large proportion of Scottish and Welsh hon. Members on both sides of the House have chosen to be absent. We will record this as a measure of their contempt for the views of the people of Scotland and Wales.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): Perhaps I might intervene here to give the Government view on the Bill. It may be that my hon. Friend from the

Scottish Office will catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker. We will endeavour to cover different ground and we shall both recommend rejection of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) was at pains to argue that, although the title of the Bill contains the word "Referenda", the sort of referendum for which he was asking was not a referendum because of the nuances which are attached to that term; but he is putting forward an argument for a referendum, and any arguments that go against referenda in general must go against the referendum for which he is arguing this morning.
There are many grounds for opposing the Bill, but there is a strong objection at this point of time. The object of the referenda is to find out whether the people of Scotland and Wales wish their present relationship with England to remain unchanged, and they are to be given four choices.
My electoral experience over nearly 20 years shows that once one moves beyond two choices the most curious results will emerge. I have spent a great deal of time in the last few months on the Representation of the People Bill and in considering arguments from both sides on choice, from which I have learned that people have difficulty even with the names of candidates. Certainly in the London area, if there are two candidates with the same name a discrepancy can occur between the two of 6,000 or 7,000 votes.
I argue that a choice of four in technical statistical terms will weaken the validity of the decision that is taken. In my view, and I speak statistically here, a referendum should contain a simple choice to enable even 80 per cent. accuracy to be obtained. The choice should be: "Do you want complete independence, or do you want association inside the United Kingdom?" The result then is likely to be an accurate one. Once one moves beyond a simple choice into fine points, important though they may be, in my view the accuracy of the referendum will be suspect.

Mr. William Baxter: Is my hon. Friend giving the Government's point of view which has been considered by the Cabinet, or is he giving us his personal point of view? He started by saying that he was giving


the Government's point of view and immediately went on to talk of his personal experience and his point of view.

Mr. Rees: It is the Government's point of view, and I was giving my own personal experience which substantiates the Government's point of view.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: May I take it from what the Minister said that he would have no objection to a simple choice being given? If that is the case, is it not a shame that his predecessors in office did not recognise the 1½million or more signatures which were given to the simple proposition for the Scottish Covenant?

Mr. Rees: I am saying that I am against referenda in general.
My second argument is that, even if there is a case for referenda, once the matter goes beyond a simple choice the result becomes inaccurate. I will come in a moment to deal with the information which people should have before making a choice.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I respect the hon. Gentleman's view that he is against referenda in general, but will he say whether the experience of the Gibraltar referendum comes within the ambit of his condemnation, or is this exceptional, and, if so, why?

Mr. Rees: I will come to Gibraltar in a moment. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I read his article in the Western Mail, which I see on occasions.
This is a very serious choice, and it is one which should not be made except with a full and complete understanding of exactly what is involved in each alternative. It is a question to which no one at present knows the answer. The full facts still need to be established on social, economic and political levels before any change is made or even contemplated in the constitutional relationships between the three countries.
To give only one example of the yawning gaps in our knowledge, how far would federal parliaments be meaningful unless they had control of taxation? If they controlled taxation, how far would they be able to go in providing the kind of social benefits to which we have all become accustomed under the present

joint constitution? As a Welshman, I do not suggest that any Welshman would vote against simply because he is better off as a result of the connection with England, but it is a factor which should be borne in mind before a decision is taken.
What about education in Wales, for example? Would the result be the setting up of a separate Welsh university grants committee? It may be felt that that is desirable. I have my own personal views about it, regardless of any Cabinet or Welsh Office view. If I had the right to vote, I could express those views. However, even though I am a Welshman, I should not have the right, though English landladies in Colwyn Bay would have. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) is a Scot, but he would not have a vote—

Mr. James Davidson: Mr. James Davidson rose—

Mr. Rees: Let me finish my point. These are matters to be taken into account before coming to a decision.
Referenda are useful on certain clear-cut issues such as that which arose in the case of Gibraltar. However, the present proposal does not arise from any single argument. Many very fine points arise which people would have to take into account. In my view, referenda or referendums—my knowledge of Latin is very sketchy, and I am not sure which it should be—are not the correct way of settling matters.

Mr. James Davidson: If I may help the hon. Gentleman, "referenda" is simply the plural of "referendum". May I point out to him, first, that it is very unusual in any form of voting for people who do not live in a place to have a vote in that place? May I also point out to him that his arguments about specific forms of government and similar detailed points are matters for Committee and are not concerned with the general principle of the Bill?

Mr. Rees: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assistance on the Latin point.
This is only one of the many questions which would need to be answered before any sort of rational choice could be made. I am sure that no one can be unaware of the feelings in Scotland and


Wales or, for that matter, in other parts of the United Kingdom such as Yorkshire and the North-East coast, where there are also strong feelings about this. It is partly to provide an answer to the questions that, recognising the demand for such a choice to be made in all parts of the country, the Government have announced the establishment of a Commission on the Constitution to consider whether any changes are desirable in the present relationships between all the constituent countries of the United Kingdom.
There has been considerable speculation, which my hon. Friend at the Scottish Office can deal with in more detail if necessary, about the reason behind the change made in the terms of reference of the Commission in replacing the words "what changes are necessary" by "whether any changes are necessary". It has been suggested that the Government are paving the way towards maintaining the status quo. I assure hon. Members that there is no sinister motive behind the alteration. It is a minor amendment of the wording primarily for verbal consistency in the best Civil Service tradition, and it conforms with the wording applied to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. On reflection, it seemed better that the Commission should inquire into whether any changes were desirable rather than that the terms of reference should appear to postulate that some changes are desirable. The alteration will have no effect on the scope of the Commission's work.
The members of the Commission are chosen for their ability to speak with authority about the different parts of Britain and for their capacity to evaluate widely differing viewpoints. They will have facilities to study in depth the problems of individual countries or areas, and will be able to hear the considered views of those who have given long and careful thought to questions of devolution and independence. In short, they will gather together the facts and lay them before the people of the British Isles.
The Bill asks the people of Scotland and Wales to make a choice on the basis of incomplete and practically non-existent information. Even more, it asks them to make a choice which will all but destroy the main hope of obtaining the very information that is needed. How could

any Commission make an objective and impartial inquiry when the matter had already been prejudged on an almost purely emotional basis? If the people should decide, let them decide on facts and not on emotion.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Is not the hon. Gentleman arguing against any policy being implemented without a Commission of this kind? Are not most political judgments taken on the basis of a combination of knowledge, hunch and emotion?

Mr. Rees: I would not deny that hunch and emotion play a big part in most political decisions, but if a decision were taken on the basis of only hunch and emotion, democracy would not have worked half as well as it has over the last 100 years.
It could be argued that the Commission would be helped by having an advance indication of people's feelings, but what is required above all is the facts. It is often implied that the Government do not recognise Scotland and Wales as having identities. It is my misfortune to attend Cabinet meetings only rarely, but, whenever I do, I am struck by the fact that there are a lot of Scots and Welshmen round the table.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In recognition of their separate identities, both countries have Ministers representing them in the Cabinet, and both have more powers and responsibilities devolved upon them than any of the English regions, and quite rightly. In the case of Wales, since 1964 we have seen the creation of the Office of Secretary of State for Wales and the transference of a large number of powers. We are all aware of what they are. My right hon. Friend exercises a general oversight responsibility, and that is not unimportant in the correlation and coordination of policy. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced the devolution of further executive powers in recent weeks.
The Government want Scotland and Wales to have as many opportunities as possible to run their own affairs. However, in advancing along these lines, we must be sure that we are doing what is best for each of our three countries, and we cannot do that without the facts. The


cry in the eighteenth century was for "political arithmetic". The same applies today. Before decisions are taken, let us have the facts. Before making alterations to a state of affairs which has grown up over the years and on which there are strong feelings in each of the individual countries, let us have the facts clear.
What happens when we have the facts? The Bill wants a referendum of sorts. I would not want to deny, nor could I, that there are impeccable democratic antecedents for the referendum. The Levellers in the seventeenth century recommended the referendum. It is used also in Switzerland. The hon. Gentleman said properly that he did not know what proportion of people would vote, and so I examined the Swiss position and found that in the national referenda there, as opposed to the cantonal referenda, an average of 50 per cent. vote. I do not suggest that this has anything but interest when trying to figure out our own, but that is the proportion—[Interruption.]—in the United States as well.
I have said that there is a democratic antecedent, but I could argue the other way. In getting some research done—everyone seems to have done the same research, inevitably—I found in The Guardian of 28th May, 1968, an interesting snippet of information about policy in the Coalition Government up to 1945. It said:
The last substantial call for a referendum came from Winston Churchill at the end of the Second World War. The issue was Churchill's demand that the life of the wartime coalition should be extended until the war in Japan was over.
The war with Germany ended on May 7, 1945; it was then expected that Labour and Liberal Ministers would shortly retire from the Government ….
But on May 18, Churchill put a two-part proposal to the other party leaders: either there should be a general election in July, or the coalition should continue until Japan was defeated. He ruled out the choice which Labour and Liberal Ministers preferred—an election in the autumn.
But the Government was under some obligation to consult the nation before its term was extended—and he thought a referendum would be an appropriate way to do it.
The Labour Party conference at Blackpool a few days later threw out this suggestion by a huge majority. The Labour leader, Mr.

Attlee, told Churchill that his party could not accept it ….
As for the suggestion that a referendum be taken, Attlee rejected it completely; it was alien to our system and so closely associated with Nazi Germany as to be unacceptable in Britain.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: The hon. Gentleman has been reading the Western Mail again.

Mr. Rees: All I am saying is that this is what has been said—

Mr. W. Baxter: Give us your own opinion.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Mr. Emrys Hughes rose—

Mr. Rees: I would have done, but my hon. Friend seeks to intervene now.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Talking about the Labour Party policy towards referenda, does my hon. Friend realise that many of the trade unions refer matters regularly to their membership according to the principle of referenda?

Mr. Rees: Yes, but all I am saying now is that this has a perfectly respectable democratic antecedent, but that, on this occasion, Mr. Attlee's argument was that it had a Nazi flavour about it. The point is that if one looks for antecedents from the days of Louis Napoleon and the plebiscite, one finds that this sort of method has been a way of appealing over the heads of State to people—[Interruption.]—not in the Levellers' tradition. There are contemporary points which I could raise there, but I had better not.
There are respectable democratic antecedents. All I have said is that the referendum can be used in a non-democratic way. That is the only point that I make.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: With regard to the particular case to which my hon. Friend referred, Churchill's proposal, has his research shown what the attitude of the Liberal Party was? My information is that it was strongly opposed by Sir Archibald Sinclair for very similar reasons.

Mr. Rees: I agree that the Liberals, as The Guardian says,
…though not condemning the proposal out of hand, made it clear that they, too, did not like it.

Mr. Alex Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a detailed analysis of this point in the book by Bullock on the life of Ernest Bevin?

Mr. Rees: I did not know that, and I am extremely grateful for the information.
Referenda are alien to our system of representative government, they work where there is no system of representative government and can even weaken our form of democracy. This is not to say that there is not a case in the context of Gibraltar or Malta or other areas on a simple point, or on the local option. I believe that, on the question of Londoners going to his constituency, the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) suggested a referendum to allow the local people to decide whether they wanted them. That was a proper suggestion, but, as a general principle, referenda would work against the form of government which we have had over the years and which is based on the system in this House.
A referendum, says Professor Max Beloff, who I understand is a Liberal,
…is workable only if the clear alternatives are set before the electorate.
It is certainly no use for complex matters. It is valuable in local option matters such as licensing in Wales. In my view, while rejecting the Bill, I can quite see that there is a need to take the views of the people in Scotland and Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom when the information has been provided.
But what lies behind the Bill other than just referenda for Scotland and Wales? There may be more to it. I accept that the Liberals, indeed from Mr. Lloyd George's day, have argued in favour of home rule for Scotland and Wales—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: So have the Socialists.

Mr. Rees: But there may be something behind this particular proposal. The Guardian in the same article says:
It is not unknown for a politician who finds himself fighting a losing battle to suggest that there ought to be a referendum."—

Mr. Thorpe: Or a Commission.

Mr. Rees: Right. [Laughter.] I should not have said, "Right", before listening to the right hon. Gentleman.
There is all the difference between getting facts and taking a decision now. I also read the article in The Times a day or two ago, which suggested that it is part of the tactics of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that the Liberals' best hope of holding on to the territory which they have won in Scotland since 1964
…is to raise the standard of home rule as the rallying point for Scottish nationalism.
The right hon. Gentleman, it says,
…calls for a common front with nationalism. 'I have said again and again that I have warm feelings towards the Scottish Nationalists,' 
so the right hon. Gentleman declares,
with all the anguish of a rejected suitor. 'I believe that the aims and outlook of many of those who support the…S.N.P. are almost identical with those of most Liberals I have never attacked them But I am bound to reiterate that it is the narrow outlook of some of their leaders which prevents co-operation and could fragment and stultify the move for home rule.'
The article says that it is not questioning the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman's personal commitment to devolution of government in London
…to say that his call for a common front is also a desperate strategy for saving the Liberal Party from the threat of obliteration in Scotland and Wales.
I repeat that Government policy is to get the facts. At the Labour Party conference last year, one point was made by speaker after speaker—that, whatever decision was taken, the need for a single economic unit was overriding. Then, when we get the findings, we can decide the next steps. We are aware of the feeling and emotion, but we must have facts.

Mr. Hooson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, home rule for Scotland and Wales has been part of the Labour Party policy for many years. Is he saying that it was part of its policy without investigating the facts?

Mr. Rees: I am simply saying that we investigate the point and that among my supporters at the party conference there was a very strong feeling that it would be foolish to break up the economic unit. I put that forward because I think the economic argument is very important.
Perhaps I may raise one last point. What about England? We have had questions about Wales and Scotland. Should England not be consulted? Should there not be a referendum for England? Should there be an English Assembly?

Mr. W. Baxter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is not in the Bill. We are discussing a Measure which has nothing to do with the matters that my hon. Friend is raising.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether it would be possible for the Long Title and the Short Title and, I think, Clause 1(1) to be amended to include a referendum for England?

Mr. Speaker: If the Minister gets out of order, Mr. Speaker will call him to order.

Mr. Rees: I am merely saying that if we are to discuss these questions intelligently, we ought also to take into account the position of England. The English seem to get left out all the time that we Welsh and Scots are giving our views, and I feel that the English ought to have a chance. I was in Aberystwyth on a Sunday last year and I noticed in the rain that there was a big white chalk notice which said "Home rule". As a Yorkshire Member, I assure the House that I had nothing to do with the fact that underneath it said "For Yorkshire."

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Mr. Richard Wainwright (Colne Valley) rose—

Mr. Rees: I have not offended Yorkshire. I am a great friend of Yorkshire. I live there.
Finally, let us not forget one thing. The United Kingdom has a great deal to offer to the world. There is nothing wrong with devolution. There is nothing wrong with the English, the Scots, the Welsh and others, thinking of a new formation of government based on ideas that have gone on for a long time. I should be sorry if we threw out the baby with the bath water in our arguments. The United Kingdom has a long history, and the English, Welsh, Scots and Irish have played an important part in its development. In properly looking for ways of improving the form of government and allowing the Scots, the Welsh and

others to be more independent in their form of government, let us not, in our arguments, forget the needs of the three great countries which form the United Kingdom.

Mr. James Davidson: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member has sat down. I again appeal for reasonably brief speeches.

12.4 p.m.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: I will endeavour to be brief, because I appreciate that many Members wish to speak.
May I, at the outset, say that I was not in the slightest bit impressed by the kind of threat that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson), the promoter of the Bill, seemed to hold over our heads about what the electorate of Edinburgh or the electorate of any other part of Scotland might think of our voting or our views on this matter. I have always taken the view that it is the duty of a Member of Parliament to do what he thinks ought to be done and to say what he thinks ought to be said. I do not believe that political integrity has ever cost anyone any support.
I do not wish to go into the merits or otherwise of the various proposals set out in Clause 1 of the Bill. My concern wholly in this legislation is the effect which a Bill of this nature, should it ever reach the Statute Book, is calculated to have on our constitutional law and practice. The fact that it is an innovation is not in itself a reason for rejecting it out of hand. But the fact that it is such a radical innovation in our constitutional practice is at least a reason why we should look at it very closely before giving it the opportunity to reach the Statute Book.
Although I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said, this is not imposing government by referenda. That very fact is one of the basic flaws of the Bill, as I see it. I will come back to that in a moment. Although I recognise that many changes could be made in the Bill in the course of its passage through a Standing Committee, should it ever reach that stage, it seems to me that although there are certain basic flaws in


it it would constitute a radical change in our constitutional practice. I express the view and the hope—unfortunately I will not be here to vote—that the House will reject the Bill.
I think that it was L. S. Amery who, in the course of a series of lectures that I had the good fortune to hear at Oxford just after the war—later published as a small book called "Thoughts on the Constitution"—said that the governmental system;n this country has been government of the people for the people. But it has never been government by the people except, of course, in the very different sense of government by the freely elected representatives of the people. The principle underlying referenda, of course, is the principle of direct democracy, and that is not something which in constitutional practice we have in this country accepted.
Although superficially there are certain attractions in the principle, as the Minister pointed out, in the application of that doctrine some very odd results were achieved. In Germany in 1933 and 1934 radical changes in the constitution of the German State were effected perfectly legitimately by the operation of the principle of direct democracy by referenda. Those changes received 90 per cent. support of the German people.
All I am saying is that although superficially the principle of direct democracy is attractive, it does not always work out in the way we might expect. I suggest that, whatever else it means, it means to some extent an abdication of the responsibility of government and an erosion of the Parliamentary system as we understand it, because decisions on major issues have to be taken by the directly expressed will of the people rather than the decision of the Government elected by the people.
I accept, as has been pointed out, that some very respectable sources have moved the idea of referenda. Sir Winston Churchill—Mr. Churchill as he then was—suggested it in 1945. Lord Asquith was one of the most fundamental critics, of course, of the referendum principle on the view that one could never get a single issue so clearly isolated as to get a clear-cut, properly thought out decision by the electorate on it.

Mr. Hooson: If the hon. and learned Gentleman looks at the constitutional debates between Asquith and Balfour, who was suggesting a referendum on behalf of the Conservatives in 1909 and 1910, he will find that Asquith always reserved the exceptional constitutional issue as the only one on which he would have a referendum.

Mr. Wylie: The hon. and learned Gentleman interrupted me as I was about to make the point. I might be prepared to go this distance with the promoter of the Bill. Where radical and fundamental changes in the constitutional machinery of the country are positively proposed, in this one sphere it may be argued with some justification that a direct appeal to the people who will be affected by the changes might be made. I do not support that argument, but I can see the force of it. If the constitutional changes involve the break up of the unitary state set up in 1707, in these special circumstances I think that there is an argument in support of a referendum. But even on that unique issue or in those unique circumstances, two things are essential. The issue has to be clear cut. It has to be a simple, straightforward issue which is fully debated and appreciated by the people who are asked to vote upon it. Above all—and this is where the Bill falls down completely—it has to be a decision which is taken with responsibility attached and not a kind of opinion poll dressed up in statutory form. It is a decision which must be taken with the full appreciation of the social, economic and political repercussions.
The Bill falls down on all these issues, because no responsibility is attached to the decision that the electorate is being asked to take. Secondly, instead of posing one simple, clear-cut issue for decision, it sets out a whole series of proposals of varying complexity. Clause 1(1)(a) poses the first question, which is
to leave the existing system of government unaltered
It would be a dull citizen indeed who was so satisfied with our present system that he would be against any change of any kind; indeed, I should be surprised if many people would put their crosses against paragraph (a).
Paragraph (d) also refers to a clear-cut issue, namely,
to have complete independence within the British Commonwealth, including sovereign control over foreign and commonwealth relations, defence, and customs and excise".
Some Scottish people may take that view, but in my view far fewer people would take that view than the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) likes to think. If that view is put forward and fully argued at the next election I believe that the hon. Lady will be very disappointed in the result that she gets. But let us find out. We will be able to find out at the next election. This is just the kind of clear-cut question that can be made a paramount issue in a General Election. The hon. Lady knows that she represents a party which stands for that very thing.
I agree that some Scottish people will vote for this—not for the hon. Member and his Liberal Party, not for the Labour Party and not for the Conservative Party; they will vote for the Scottish Nationalist Party. This is not a reason for asking, in the abstract and with no political responsibility attached, for the view of the people of Scotland on this issue now.
Then we come to paragraph (b),
to devolve additional powers and functions to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales
and so on. In respect of Scotland, at any rate, for a long time there has been a steady devolution of political powers and functions. Ever since the Secretary of State for Scotland Act, 1885, and the Secretary of State Act, 1926, and ever since my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) was appointed Minister of State for Scotland in 1951, there has been a steady devolution of administrative power to Scotland. The party to which I have the honour to belong has played a tremendous part in that process.
The full extent of devolution has been obscured largely by its piecemeal development. Some of the most important administrative devolutions are taken in legislation which one would not normally link with constitutional change. The Electricity Reorganisation (Scotland) Act, 1954, took away from the Ministry of Power full responsibility for the generation of electricity. That is the kind

of devolution which Governments have been carrying out over the years. But it is a very complicated and complex matter.
Are we seriously being asked to believe that the electorates of Scotland and Wales will be able to come to a considered view on the devolution of additional powers and functions to those Secretaries of State? What powers? What functions? One only needs to examine this proposition to realise what a nonsense it is.
Hardly anyone will support paragraph (a); in my submission, few will support paragraph (d); nobody will understand paragraph (b), and so we are left with paragraph (c). This is the leading question. Without any wider knowledge of the matter we are left with the via media principle which appeals to the common sense of the Scottish people. If they had to answer this question I suppose that without thinking much more about it they could well vote for paragraph (c).
There is one Scottish newspaper for which the federal system presents no problem. I am not sure how free from difficulty the Liberal Party is on the federal solution, but I am sure that as the argument developed the complications and complexities involved in this proposition would become more and more apparent. Although there may be a case—I am not saying that there is not—for a federal solution, the one thing that is certain is that it is not the kind of matter which can be decided by an on-the-doorstep Gallup Poll of the kind contemplated by the Bill.

Mr. James Davidson: A point has been reiterated constantly from hon. Members on both sides implying that the object of the Bill is to tie the hands of the Government. The Bill gives the peoples of Scotland and Wales a chance to indicate their views—and no more. It places the Government in power under a moral obligation—and no more. It is not an attempt to tie the hands of the Government. I ask the hon. and learned Member to bear that in mind.

Mr. Wylie: I want to be fair about this. I have said that this proposition constitutes the basic weakness of the Bill. If we do not attach political responsibility to a decision we get an irresponsible decision. This is an irresponsible


Bill which would produce an irresponsible result, and that is not in the interests of any part of the community in these islands.
I now turn to the question of the timing of the Bill. We are on the verge—within the next year or, at most, the next two years—of a General Election. Under this legislation the peoples of Scotland and Wales will be asked within six months to undergo some other kind of general election—because this must be considered in the light of full scrutiny and debate. It will be done at a time when we are awaiting the report of two Royal Commissions on local government; at a time when the Conservative Party is examining this matter in depth and when a Committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend is considering the matter, and when it will be under consideration by a Royal Commission set up by the Government. To my mind the very timing of this proposal leads one to question the motives behind it.
I do not wish to go into that aspect of the matter. In conclusion I merely say that unless we can obtain a considered view there is no value in obtaining any view. Unless we can produce a simple issue on which the electorate is able and ready to give a considered reply, in the full knowledge of the political responsibility involved, this proposal achieves nothing at all. The Bill has the basic weakness of removing political responsibility from the decision and the further basic weakness of introducing a whole series of confusing and conflicting propositions all of which, to put it bluntly, the electorate would not be able to pose a fully considered view—[Laughter.] The hon. Member laughs. Let him make whatever comment he wants to make on that. I do not believe that the electorate could give a proper and considered answer, for example, on the question of the devolution of additional powers and functions. I do not believe that, in the absence of all the necessary information, the electorate could come to a proper and considered decision on the complicated issue of federalism.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): Neither could the Liberals.

Mr. Wylie: The Minister doubts whether the Liberals could. They may have resolved this matter. But if this matter has been resolved by the Liberal Party, as the electorate can vote for the hon. Member for Hamilton and her colleagues on the proposition contained in paragraph (d), so, presumably, they could vote for the Liberal Party on paragraph (c).
Without the element of political responsibility an irresponsible answer will result, and that is not the kind of answer which, in the interests of the peoples of Wales and Scotland, we need at this stage.

12.20 p.m.

Mr. George Willis: The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) introduced the Bill with great vigour. He made a vigorous attack on hon. Members on this side and on all those who opposed the Bill because they did not consider it to be important and do not want to do anything about self-government. I remind him that he did not think it so important six months ago. This Bill is a second choice. Six months ago he was circularising Members on feu duties and multures. Apparently that was the most important thing then, and not a referendum.

Mr. James Davidson: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the reason I had to abandon that idea was that there was insufficient support from the Government side to have any hope of getting that Bill through.

Mr. Willis: Do I assume, then, that the hon. Gentleman has more support for this Bill? The point is that he then thought that that was the most important matter he could tackle. This is a second thought on his part.

Mr. James Davidson: Certainly not.

Mr. Willis: It was not sufficiently important to put it forward in September. The hon. Gentleman did not circularise all Members in September on the issue of a referendum for Scotland and Wales. That rather puts the Bill and his vigorous attack in perspective.

Mr. Hooson: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that my hon. Friend drew this chance in the Ballot in November last year?

Mr. Willis: I also remember the letters we received from the hon. Gentleman, and I know that this is a second choice. We must keep that in mind.
I enter the debate as one who has believed for many years that Scotland should have a parliament for its domestic affairs because I believe that that would make for the better government of Scotland and enable this House to have more time and resources to tackle the United Kingdom matters that it should tackle. But I do not support the Bill. The main arguments against a referendum have been very well stated by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie). One is the difficulty of selecting a sufficiently clear-cut issue, on which the vote is of value and is not likely to be interpreted in all sorts of ways.
The Scotsman recently conducted a ballot of 1,300 people on the proposals in Clause 1. No sooner had it published the result than people entered its correspondence columns to discuss what the result meant, and what it could have meant had the questions been framed differently. I think that those are fair points to make. If that happens in a ballot of 1,300 people on these questions, we can see how difficult a referendum becomes.
Let us look at some of the choices. I do not even know what some of them mean. The first is:
to leave the existing system of Government unaltered;
If we take that in conjunction with choice (b), it means that never more could we introduce a Bill in this House, if those choices were approved, extending the powers of the Secretary of State. We should not have been able to do what we did in the Transport Act and transfer considerable functions and responsibilities over transport to the Secretary of State. Would the elector know that? Would he know from reading the question that that is what it means?

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the inability of the average elector to decide these complicated issues, does he think that it is wise for us to allow electors to vote for a Government every five years?

Mr. Willis: They do not decide complicated issues at General Elections. They vote for persons and parties, on the line that in general they accept the principles and policies put before them by those persons and parties. The hon. Gentleman's party does not put a detailed policy before the electorate. It puts forward a number of general proposals, and all parties do the same. The electors know that by and large the Tories represent the landowning, business, well-to-do classes, whilst by and large the Labour Party represents the trade union movement and people of that kind. They know the general attitude of mind of members of the parties. It does not coincide with everything they want, but by and large it represents the way they think and would like their problems tackled. This is what representative government means. It does not mean instruction on details of administration.
What does choice (a) mean? Is the elector likely to know what he is voting for? This has nothing to do with intelligence. He might be very intelligent, but the issue does not come out.
Let us consider choice (c)—jurisdiction over all internal affairs. This means that our present regional policy for distributing industry would be robbed of one of the two legs on which it is based. One is that we prevent industries being established in the overcrowded regions of London and the Midlands, and the second is that we induce them to go to other areas. But here one would take away the very important leg of refusing development in those areas. Does the elector know this when he is asked to put his cross against this choice? He does not.
There should be a little addendum to choice (d), which says:
to have complete independence within the British Commonwealth, including sovereign control over foreign and commonwealth relations, defence, and customs and excise.
The addendum would say:
even though this might mean a temporary setback to our rising standard of living.
After all the Questions asked in the House during the past 12 months, the articles in the Scottish Press, and the analyses people have tried to make of income and expenditure, this might well be added. We might get quite different answers if those important words were added.

Mr. David Steel: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he would be unable to express that point of view to the electorate with any less clarity than he can explain his views in his election address at General Elections, and that they would be less able to understand it?

Mr. Willis: I am coming to that in a moment. I would do my best. But these are the issues.
We could have other choices. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) wants another one, to have a Scottish republic, which is quite a legitimate question. The Clause does not exhaust the list of alternatives.

Mr. W. Baxter: If an addendum were added to (d) saying that it might reduce the standard of living of the people of Scotland and Wales, there would be a different attitude. The reverse would apply if there were an addendum to say that it would increase the standard of living of the people of Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Willis: I am not saying that it would either increase or lower the standard of living. All that I said was that in the past 12 months there have been Questions in the House—I have not asked them—articles in The Scotsman and discussions on television by economists from different universities on this issue, and one would have thought that there was some importance in it. I am not saying that that choice would lead to a temporary setback in the rising standard of living, but it might, and people should know this. It might mean the opposite. One does not know. All this illustrates only too well the difficulties which arise in trying to frame the right questions. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) has demonstrated clearly that, in accordance with how one puts the questions, one gets different answers from the electors.

Mr. W. Baxter: On a point of order. This is a matter of debate and discussion and one is entitled to put a point of view that the last question in the referendum would be to advantage and others are entitled to put their point of view that it would be a disadvantage. I do not see why we should have to argue

that we should have to put the one point or the other in an addendum.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has answered himself. This is a debate.

Mr. Willis: All this illustrates how difficult the question is and brings out clearly what importance one attaches to the answers one gets. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West has now reduced it to the fact that one does not pay a lot of attention to it but that it gives one a general indication of what the people of Scotland want. I do not know about that. Surely a general indication of what the people of Scotland want can be obtained through the normal processes of election. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) and her party will contest the next election on separation. I assume that that is their policy. If so, then we shall have a decision on it.

Mrs. Ewing: My party will contest the next election—

Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely we are getting a series of speeches in the guise of interventions.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will take note of what the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) says, but if an hon. or right hon. Gentleman gives way to an intervention, then he gives way.

Mrs. Ewing: My party will contest the next election on the fullest control by the people of Scotland over Scottish affairs and everything to do with Scotland.

Hon. Members: Separation.

Mr. Willis: That quite clearly means separation and we shall clearly get an indication from the people. We shall also get a general indication from the support of the Liberal Party as to the degree of support for Clause 1(1)(e). But we get all this during the normal course of elections. We get it at General Elections, at by-elections and at municipal elections. In between, we get such indications through debates, speeches, the Press and all the other organs of public opinion. There is something wrong with an hon. Member who is not aware of what his own constituents are thinking.

Clause 2 would mean in effect a miniature General Election. The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) raised some pertinent points which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West thought ought to be left to the Secretary of State. How much money are the parties to be allowed to spend on this? Is there to be a limit? We do not leave that decision to the Secretary of State for an election. This House decides.

Mr. James Davidson: Introduce an Amendment in Committee.

Mr. Willis: The introduction of a code of conduct for such campaigns would need a Parliamentary Bill of about 240 Clauses. That is what the present law is contained in. I take it that the Scottish Nationalist Party would plunge itself into a great campaign. I do not complain. That is politics. No doubt the Liberal Party will spend whatever resources it has in running around the streets of Edinburgh canvassing, as it appears to have been doing already. With all this going on, we should have a miniature General Election and, if it were to be fair and meaningful, it would mean introducing a code of conduct of the sort we have already for General Elections. I do not think that all this is worth it.
There is also, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, England. We have worked in partnership. The United Kingdom is a partnership. Scotland is not a Crown Colony. Some people might like to think that it is, but although I have been here a long time and have many complaints about the way certain business is conducted, I have never suffered from any delusion that Scotland is a Crown Colony. Crown Colonies do not provide Prime Ministers, which is what Scotland has been doing repeatedly over the years.
If we are to discuss the future of the partnership, surely all the partners should take part. I can well imagine, however, that a number of English people might say, "A plague on both your houses" to Wales and Scotland and add, "Let us get rid of the Scotsmen holding top positions in London".

Mr. William Hamilton: Never.

Mr. Willis: They could certainly ask why England should not be in the Bill. Surely that would be fair. This is a partnership which supporters of the Bill propose to alter. The least they can do is to concede the right to express its view to the other partner. So, in effect, we come to another General Election on another issue—a very involved and complex issue.
I believe that our system of representative Government has achieved a certain measure of democratic constitutional progress over a great number of years. I believe that it is responsive to the wishes of the people—perhaps not immediately, but over the course of time. I believe that this assembly is responsive to the people's wishes and I believe also that it has the wisdom, experience and knowledge to assess the public view. We have all the public channels of communication and debate at our disposal. I have yet to hear a sufficiently powerful argument in favour of introducing this new instrument into our constitutional practice that would convince me to support the Bill.

12.38 p.m.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) for this opportunity to speak on the subject closest to my heart and which has led to my arriving among you in this House. In Scotland, a great debate rages. Every-where that people meet and everywhere that people speak and also in the minds of the men and women. Here we seem to be out of touch with that great debate, for it is rarely on our agenda. Time is rarely found for it. You would think it a natural for the Scottish Grand Committee, but there too we do not discuss the subject that really is of paramount interest to Scotland. If you consider the attitude of people outside this House, this failure gives the electorate in Scotland proof that the House is not sufficiently concerned. You will be in danger of being regarded as escapists.

Mr. Speaker: Order. "You" in this context means the Chair.

Mrs. Ewing: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
We should discuss this matter seriously and without partisanship, without taking a snide attitude or sneering at one another's parties. We should ask ourselves


what this proposition has to offer, remembering the great desire of people to participate more in the control of their affairs. This is certainly true of youth, and we keep hearing about this general desire for greater involvement.
I understand the view of those who will say, "Let the ballot box decide". I want to make my position quite clear. I have always thought that a move back to the days of the Scottish Covenant would not be completely satisfactory. I mentioned this in an intervention in the Under-Secretary's speech. He promised to answer and did not do so. I agree that it is very easy to write one's name on a piece of paper. This does not involve hard work. It is much harder to knock on doors or to put pamphlets in letter boxes. There was an overwhelming response to the choice of Scottish Parliament, but it has become obvious that although the evidence would be clear, such a choice would not be satisfactory to the major parties in the House of Commons. They said "Away with half a million signatures, we require the verdict of the ballot box".
I ask hon. Members to consider the implications of that attitude and to pursue that logic to its end. If the House insists that we ignore referenda as a useful means of ascertaining answers to questions of this kind and insists on the ballot box verdict, when the ballot box verdict comes, if it is in favour of my point of view, it will then be far too late to propose a referendum. [HON. MEMBERS: "It would not be needed".] I am glad that there appears to be agreement about that.
The Under-Secretary said that now was not a good time for this proposition. It is never a good time to do things which ought to be done. He said that he needed the facts. Of course the facts are important. Since coming here, I have directed a great deal of my attention to ascertaining as many facts as I could get. The right hon. Lady the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has been promised a Scottish "Budget", but why have we not had such a budget for all these years? If facts are so important, why should we not have had all the facts for all these years? Why did it take my election to Parliament to have this matter put at the top of the agenda?
If there were a referendum, we would have the facts of a choice of four possibilities. Hon. Members may think that it is not an important choice, but most people in Scotland regard it as very important. Hon. Members should not underestimate the intelligence of the Scottish electors, and to suggest that they would not be able to understand this simple proposition is to insult the intelligence of Scotsmen. The Scots are as well able to understand these questions as the many and varied issues put to them by every party at the time of a general election.
The most curious of the Under-Secretary's other arguments and perhaps the most undemocratic was that it was not where one had chosen to live which was important, but from where one had originally come. He explained that he was Welsh, but now lives in Yorkshire. It is the place where one lives which decides one's ability to vote. One has a responsibility and a duty to be interested in the affairs of the community among whom one has chosen to live. I do not know whether there is any truth in it, but I am told that one of the reasons I was elected the Member for Hamilton was the size of the English vote which I received. We embrace everyone who has chosen Scotland as his home. My party has many English candidates and many English councillors, and we are very pleased about that. Some English people have chosen to live in Scotland and they know what the issues are and they would be fully entitled to take part in any referendum. I could not understand the Under-Secretary's view in that respect.
I have very little patience with another part of his argument which seemed to run counter to something else he said. He admitted the national identity of Scotland and Wales. After a great deal of delay and a great deal of fact-finding, a Commission for Scotland has already in 1952 admitted Scotland's national identity. The hon. Gentleman equated the feelings of Yorkshire people with that sense of national identity in Scotland. They are not the same. If the major parties equate an ancient nation and all the things that go with that with a region of another ancient nation, they do us a great disservice and they show great illogicality.
I am all for having a referendum for England, but as that is not mentioned in the Bill, it would not be in order for me to deal with it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, it would."] In that case an hon. Member could move an Amendment to the Bill to provide for such a referendum, and I would certainly support him.
I am not afraid of what the findings of this referendum would be. I do not think that anyone is 100 per cent. satisfied with the wording of the Bill. To be fair to the proposer, he consulted every party in an attempt to find a fair wording. He certainly consulted me.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have no knowledge of the Labour Party having been consulted on this subject.

Mr. James Davidson: I wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland to ask what would be the Government's altitude to the Bill and saying that I would be quite prepared to make alterations.

Mr. Rees: Mr. Rees rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a debate between two interveners.

Mrs. Ewing: I am not afraid of what the findings might be and I would accept the findings, remembering that they would just be a piece of evidence to be taken into consideration. Would it not be a good thing for the House to prepare itself for the forthcoming debate by having the facts? So far, the House has more or less escaped debating this issue, but hon. Members may rest assured that at the next election every political candidate of every party on every platform will find himself debating this issue, and it may be advisable to undertake a little preparation to be able to deal with it.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Ladys says that she is satisfied with the clarity of the questions. One of the choices mentions federal status. What kind of federal status does she have in mind? Would it be on the American pattern, or on the Australian pattern; or that laid down in the British North America Act.

Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman has put words into my mouth. I am not 100 per cent. satisfied with the wording, but I do not think that the effect would be confusion. I have tackled the Leader of the Liberal Party on this very matter,

and I was not satisfied with his answer. There is no need to suppose that the choice cannot be made perfectly plain. We can make the issues plain when other complex and serious proposals are put before the electorate at a general election.
In Scotland we have had a series of plebiscites. They have been conducted by the Scottish Plebiscite Society, a non-political group including judges and respected former members of the Labour Party, and there have been plebiscites by this private voluntary organisation. In 1949, in Kirriemuir, 92 per cent. voted for a simple proposition for or against a Scottish Parliament, in Peebles in 1959 82 per cent. voted for, and in Jedburgh later 94 per cent. voted for. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen will accept the recent poll conducted by The Scotsman, when 88 per cent. voted for a Scottish Parliament, divided between 54 per cent. voting for the fourth proposition of complete independence and 36·6 per cent. voting for a domestic Parliament. If I am willing to accept the evidence of a referendum, why are not the other parties? Are they afraid of what the findings might be?
The next point is the precedent argument. We have had a precedent in the case of Gibraltar. Is this House to permit a referendum about self-determination only when it is sure of two things—first that it knows the answer and second that it knows that it will like it? The Government know the answer that they will get in the case of Scotland and Wales, but they do not like it, so they will not have a referendum. Is that not what it amounts to?
I have already mentioned the implications of turning down this proposition. It is the last chance to try to ascertain whether the people of Scotland and Wales seek self-determination in the terms of the United Nations Charter to which this House and all of us are committed. It is the policy of the United Kingdom to allow a nation's right to self-determination if it has universal suffrage. The Scots have had compulsory education longer than any other country. They are highly intelligent and politically conscious electors. It is very strange that this House supports self-determination as a principle only if the country concerned is far enough away. But the record of this House is very


honourable in this respect and many nations have since the war been sponsored by the United Kingdom to full individual membership of the United Nations.
The illogic of the situation of my nation, whose national identity is admitted in this House and for which this House is fully repsonsible, struck me forcibly when I had the great experience of watching Swaziland take its seat as a new member of the United Nations in September, sponsored by the United Kingdom. Lord Caradon made an excellent and moving speech. I cannot remember his exact words, but the sentiment which he expressed was that, each time a new nation is added to the world of nations, the whole world is enriched, and every time a new voice is heard in the assembly of nations, the whole tone and quality of the debate is enriched. I thought how ironic it was that Scotland, the land described by Dr. Johnson—not the best friend of the Scots—as the "Kingdom of thought", was not able to make a contribution.
It is not just a question of a right for which we are looking but of a desire to have a responsibility for mankind. We in Scot and do not feel that we will always take the same view as is taken in England or in Wales on matters involving mankind. We are deprived of our opportunity to take a seat in these international assemblies and put our point of view—

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Of course the hon. Lady would not want to mislead the House. She must be aware that Scots have played a very prominent part at the United Nations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas Home) is one of those. In a humbler capacity, I spent three years as a Scot at the United Nations in the permanent delegation. This was recognised by everyone, including the interpreters, who knew very well that I was a Scot.

Mrs. Ewing: That intervention has helped my argument considerably. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the good contribution which is made the world over by Scotsmen when they get a chance as individuals. Imagine the contribution which Scotland could make to the world as a nation. The hon. Gentleman has

strengthened my argument and I thank him.
We are in a partnership. Another of the Under-Secretary's arguments was an emotive one—the very sort of thing that he warned us against—about not throwing the baby out with the bath water, whatever that means. He issued an emotive appeal to us all to stick together. Some ways of sticking together are better than others. The best way is that one is responsible and taken into the deciding of those affairs which properly concern one. That is the right of any nation. That would mean that we would have a better contribution to make to the world in whatever association we entered with the nations around us, including our closest neighbours.
We were the most modern experimentalists in an international experiment in 1707—the first of the great experiments and it has been for Scotland a disastrous experiment. We feel that it is not right that the present situation should continue and that this is the time, in a world where people have their own say, for us to find a way within the framework of democracy to effect the radical change that the evidence clearly shows is desired in Scotland.

12.55 p.m.

Mr. William Baxter: I listened with great interest to the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) and I congratulate her on her sentiments, with which I largely concur. I also greatly appreciate the opportunity granted to us by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) to hear a very cogent case for this Measure. We are indebted to him for the opportunity to debate this important subject.
I contend that the principle of a referendum cannot be disputed. Irrespective of what the opponents of the Bill may say, a referendum as such is fundamentally sound and desirable. There have been no arguments this morning to prove to me or the public that a referendum on the subjects in the Bill is not fundamentally sound. The phraseology may leave something to be desired—the proposal about whether it should be "federalism" or not may require alteration—but these are matters which can be debated or altered in Committee. I


see no reason why the principle should be lost in the argument about the triviality of altering a word here or there or the argument on the finance necessary.
It has been suggested that our people would not have the ability, the education, the sense or the responsibility to make clear and concise judgments on the question put before them. But, as we have been reminded, this could be an argument against any elections in this country. Do we not put complicated questions before the electorate from time to time and expect them, in their wisdom or otherwise, to support the better suggestion? That is the fundamental principle of the whole set-up of elections as we hold them at present.
The first alternative of the Bill, to leave the existing system of Government as it is, is a question which must at least tickle the fancy even of hon. Members. Do we not realise—we should—that, unless one is a member of a so-called "secret society" or has some special contacts with the powers-that-be or wears the proper school tie, one is very unlikely to be given any promotions or consulted at any time on the most insignificant thing which comes before the House? On the Order Paper this morning is the notification of the selection of a Scottish Committee. Who in the House was consulted about who should be on that Committee?

Mr. William Hamilton: I am interested in my hon. Friend's argument. Would he tell us how he became a Member of the Chairmen's Panel?

Mr. Baxter: That is one of the great secrets of the House. I was not even able to probe into that. I was selected, but for what reasons I am unable to say. Anyway, by virtue of a slight disagreement I shall set a particular record in ceasing to be a member of the Chairmen's Panel in less than a year because I disagree with the method of selection even of members of the Chairman's Panel.

Mr. Hamilton: You went on it.

Mr. Baxter: I was reluctant to accept it—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a wide debate, but I do not think that it is quite as wide as that.

Mr. Baxter: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker. I was honoured in being asked to serve on the Chairmen's Panel by yourself and your colleagues.
But, with respect, I believe that the set-up of the House of Commons leaves much to be desired. If we are not aware of the need for a change in the existing system of government, it is time that we left the House. I do not want to elaborate the reasons why so many are anxious to come back here and why we do not seek fundamental changes. That could be debated at length, and I do not want to waste the time of the House on it. But there are many and varied reasons why hon. Members do not seek changes to this hallowed institution. It is my contention that the disadvantages of the institution outweigh its advantages in its present construction and formation and that it requires a fundamental change in the whole set up. If we do not make the change, a forecast without fear of contradiction that the consequences for the nation will be grave. We are ostriches sticking our heads in the sand if we do not realise the importance of this issue.
It has been suggested that a decision to take a referendum is not the proper way to tackle the problem and yet, on an issue before the House at the moment—that concerning a strike ballot—the two main parties believe that a ballot is the one way to resolve the difficulty. Of course, if they are not themselves involved, they are anxious to have ballots.
The future of every person in the House and of all our successors is in the balance if we ask the opinion of the great mass of our people whether this place should be altered. This is an important aspect of government which requires a referendum and which requires people a little apart from us to take a longer look at the picture—a picture which we are painting to the great mass of our people, not of satisfaction and contentment and not of the virility which ought to be expected in a House such as this. We do not paint a picture of an aggressive approach which could bring the nation to greatness. We do not paint such a picture to people who believe that this place is of no consequence—and nor is it.
Is any back bench Member consulted on the major issues which are brought before the House and the country? [HON.


MEMBERS: "Yes."] No, they are not consulted The people who are consulted, and even the Select Committees of inquiry into local or national government, by and large are selected from people out-with the House. Even Prime Ministers, when appointed, have little regard and little respect for the integrity or ability of Members of Parliament. It is time that we recognised the simple facts of life.

Mr. Ogden: What respect does my hon. Friend expect us to be accorded by people outside the House if hon. Members inside the House continually decry their own profession and their own ability? Do we hear teachers, doctors and nurses decrying their own ability? How can we expect people outside the House to appreciate us if we do not have pride in our own achievements?

Mr. Baxter: When we achieve something. I have no objection to a certain degree of pride and satisfaction, but what do we achieve? Let us analyse it. It is true that there are Members of great ability in the House and excellent professors, doctors, scientists, business men, ordinary labourers and ordinary workers who have great capacity in their individual pursuits. But what is the combination of all that? Does it give us a wisdom which we can reasonably expect from a place such as this, or a judgment? I am entitled to express a point of view and, having looked at the whole spectacle of Parliament, I do not believe that it has shown any greater sensibility than is shown by the ordinary man in the street. I do not think we display a greater common sense than does the ordinary man in the street. We therefore have no right to deny the ordinary man in the street the opportunity of expressing his point of view on such a great constitutional issue as this.

Mr. W. Howie: My hon. Friend is making some interesting points about the way in which the House is run, and I agree with many of them. I wonder whether he would tell us what change would be made by the Bill and, indeed, whether the Bill has anything to do with the points which he is making?

Mr. Baxter: That is an interesting point and I shall be delighted to answer it. If a decision is made on paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d), a Government—irrespective

of which Government—must have regard to what the people want or they may be in difficulties. Let us assume that the people voted for paragraph (d), complete separation. Let us assume that the great mass of the people of Scotland decided that they want complete separation. Everybody says that such a decision would be terrible, but the people of Scotland have a right to make it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said that if they were told that their standard of living might be reduced a bit if that decision were taken, it would have an effect on their attitude. There is no proof of that. There is something greater than money. There is something greater than the simple fact of coming here. There is a pride of place and the Scottish people have a right to a pride in their own place. If we have a referendum and our people demand complete separation, there is nothing fundamentally wrong about that. They are entitled to accept the consequences of their action, either good or bad—and who can say that it would be bad? No balance has been struck.
But there is a normal balance sheet struck in the minds of all of us. I would rather see Scotland an independent Scotland and represented at the United Nations, expressing a point of view. I should like my people given the opportunity to say whether they want a Polaris base in Holy Loch when one bomb could destroy the whole of our people. I do not want these things forced upon us from a Parliament in London—not even dictated by Parliament but dictated by generals who in the past, if past wars are any indication, have little or no knowledge of future conflicts.

Mr. Lawson: Would my hon. Friend agree that even in the House he has never accepted and acted according to a decision with which he did not agree and that he always insists upon what the Scots call his "aín swine's way"?

Mr. Baxter: I agree that I am an exception to the general rule, but an exception which proves the rule. I am a little different in this respect from my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). For many years he took great exception to me because he thought


that I was undermining the party, because I did not accept in every respect the great thing called the Whip. I believe that it would be better for all our people if there were more independence in the House.
Like many others, the Minister lives in the past. He read the brief which he had received from the Cabinet. I do not think much of the Cabinet. You may read it, if you like, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and if that is not your conclusion after you have read it, I apologise. Perhaps you will let me know what are your conclusions. It is a brief from a Cabinet fixed in the past, bogged down by old, musty ideas. It is the tragedy of our day and age. We live too much in the past and do not focus our attention on the future. We have too many commissions and inquiries into what happened in the past, when one commission or inquiry which is of paramount importance to the wellbeing of our nation would be a commission or inquiry focusing on what we shall do in the future. That is the importance of our being here—not to produce arguments based upon what Gladstone may have said or what Lloyd George may have said or even what the newspapers may have said yesterday. Let us come to our own conclusions and put our point of view.
I do not want to take up the time of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."'] Thank you, I will go on a little longer. Paragraph (b) says
to devolve additional powers and functions to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and to the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees of the House of Commons".
Can any hon. Member with truth say that the "Scottish Grand Committee as constituted at the moment, and as it has done its work over the last 10 years or so, is a method whereby we can rejuvenate the people and the economy for Scotland? I defy anyone to say so. That was outwith the baby which the Front Bench speaker threw out with the bathwater.
Paragraph (c) says
to establish domestic Parliaments in Scotland and Wales having jurisdiction over all internal affairs and with federal status within the United Kingdom".
This must give rise to more questions in our minds. Is there a way whereby this could be done without destroying some

of the things which my hon. Friends and others believe to be the unity of purpose of the United Kingdom? There is a way in which we could set up a federal system which would give us all a great deal of local or national control. That to some extent commends itself to me, and it is advocated by the Liberal Party.
A problem which is not unsurmountable is the question of controlling and raising of money. This could be done if Scotland had a Parliament of its own under a federal system by which rates for local authorities would be on a new structure of financing. A region called Scotland could be based not only on a partial property tax but also on an income tax, which would give a greater degree of equity and fairness to all. The whole aspect of education, police services, hospitals and other major services could come under such a body. We could play a part in such a federal system with England and Wales. This would avoid the necessity for increasing the membership of this place because only a few Members would have to come here to do their duty. This is worth consideration.
I have referred to paragraph (d). It is of paramount importance. In view of the tempo of life at present, the constant changes in science, the development of the human race, developments in communications—I saw at B.O.A.C. the other day the sketch of a plane which within a few years would be able to go to Australia in something less than four hours—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): This is far from the subject of a referendum.

Mr. Baxter: I wish only to illustrate the tempo of life in which man is at present. We should not be satisfied that our pace should be the opposite. We should give to the people of Wales and Scotland an opportunity to express their point of view on four specific questions. We may not get answers which my hon. Friends or I may want, but on a great constitutional issue the people of Wales and Scotland are entitled to express a point of view. If it only brought this place to a sense of reality, a sense of purpose and a going forward, it would serve a very useful purpose for all mankind.

1.15 p.m.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: As most of the previous speeches have borne out—and I think the same could be said for the speech of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter), so far as I was able to follow his trend of thought—the object of our debate today is not so much to decide the future Government of our country or to discuss the various possibilities open to us, but rather to consider whether the Bill could help either us or the country to arrive at such a decision. For this reason we are bound to give it the closest scrutiny.
I wart first to look at its origin. It originates with the Liberal Party—or rather with one section of the party, what I might call the more extreme wing. It is interesting to speculate on why the Liberal Party should have given birth to this particular Measure at this particular time. I think the answer is fairly clear—it is a desperate attempt to save their political bacon.
Most of us have considerable affection and admiration for the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I am sorry that he is not at the moment in the Chamber. It seems that he has all the attributes of a successful political, indeed national, leader except one; he is short of followers, although it was not only a generous but probably a wise move on his part to hand over the leadership of the party to his right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), who is not with us at present either.
I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) will not accuse me of being unduly tortuous-minded if I see the present Bill—I am not the only one who has seen it in this rather unfavourable light—in the nature of a take-over bid designed to pick up a few followers cheap at the expense of the Scottish and Welsh National Parties.

Dr. Winstanley: Dr. Winstanley rose—

Sir F. Maclean: I have little time—

Dr. Winstanley: On this point—

Sir F. Maclean: It is not a material point. I was about to say that, not being a member of the Liberal Party, and not likely to become one, I view the whole

project with rather less enthusiasm than I might otherwise do.

Dr. Winstanley: Is the hon. Member suggesting that it is in some way improper for a political party to recommend something which it thinks the people want?

Sir F. Maclean: Not at all, especially if a few votes go with it. It is interesting to find the motives, which have now been confirmed to me by the hon. Member.
Like other hon. Members, I have never been enamoured of plebiscites as such. Direct consultation may be all right for deciding relatively simple straightforward questions admitting of a plain answer "yes" or "no"—such as whether alcoholic refreshments should be sold in a given part of the country at a given time or not. When it comes to more complicated political issues admitting of a variety of different solutions and requiring a great deal of specialised knowledge and research, it seems that they have very little to recommend them and that a gradual and more complex method of consultation is called for.
It would be interesting, for example—here I am delighted to give way—to know what view the Liberal Party would have at the moment on plebiscites on capital punishment or immigration. I believe such plebiscites would introduce some very interesting, if not very valuable results.

Mr. Hooson: As the hon. Member invited an interjection, may I say for my party that I am sure we would adhere to the view expressed by Asquith, in 1911, that the occasion for a referendum is on a constitutional issue and no other as a general principle?

Sir F. Maclean: Well, all I can say is that I do not agree with what Mr. Asquith said in 1909.
Of course, plebiscites have been used for deciding big political issues, almost always to the entire satisfaction of those who instituted them. Napoleon I, Napoleon III, Adolf Hitler and more recently General de Gaulle, all held the most successful plebiscites, some with a vote approaching 100 per cent., but I doubt whether even the wild men of the Liberal Party really want to see that sort of plebiscite here. Surely, if ever there was an


issue which did not lend itself to solution by plebiscite, which did not admit of a snap decision, it is the extremely complicated and controversial one of the future government of this country.

Mr. James Davidson: Would the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir F. Maclean: I must not give way because, I am sorry to say, I have a plane to catch.

Mr. William Hamilton: British European?

Sir F. Maclean: The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) will have another opportunity.

Mr. James Davidson: But the hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting the purpose of my Bill.

Sir F. Maclean: As both of the major parties have recognised, and I am glad to say that they have done it publicly, the present subject is one which requires the most careful investigation into all its aspects, and not those of some past time but those now, the present circumstances, pertaining today; investigation by experts, and up-to-date. This needs to be done before a decision can fairly be taken or the issue fairly put to the electorate. I suppose that most of us here are fairly aware politically, otherwise, presumably, we should not be here, but I very much doubt whether many of us, except the most presumptuous, would consider ourselves competent to decide these issues, or to decide between one possible solution and another, without far more information of all kinds of aspects of the case than is at present available.

Mr. James Davidson: The hon. Gentleman really must give way. He keeps speaking about making a decision. What the Bill seeks to do is to give people the opportunity to express a view, to indicate a view, not to take a decision. The hon. Gentleman is perpetually sliding over this fundamental point.

Sir F. Maclean: If the hon. Member will wait I will come in a few moments to the point which he has raised.
There is no doubt about it that what he is proposing is a plebiscite or referendum. He himself has called it a referendum. I will now come to the

point which he has made. I think not plebiscite outlined in the hon. Member's Bill with its four alternative solutions is the worst conceivable kind of plebiscite. It is a real dog's dinner of a referendum, which could only cause chaos, which only that a plebiscite is the worst conceivable way of trying to decide this particular issue but that the type of could only confuse the issue even worse than it is confused already. He said that he might add further alternative solutions; I think the only effect of them would be to make it even dottier than it is already.
I do not want to give the hon. Gentleman the slightest encouragement, but if there has to be a referendum, if the people of Scotland had to be asked the simple question "Yes?" or "No?", then at least the question which would make some sense as a question for them to be asked would be, "Do you want complete separation from the rest of the United Kingdom or not?". I myself believe that that is a question which will be answered in the ordinary way at the next election.
The hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) said just now that if her party got a majority of seats in Scotland at the next election it would be too late for a referendum. I agree absolutely that there would no longer be any need for a referendum; the question would have been settled in a proper democratic way, and, I imagine, accepted by all concerned, whether gladly or reluctantly, as we accept the results of a General Election in the ordinary way. If this were to be the result, then the majority of people in Scotland would have voted for separation, and we should get separation. But that is quite a different thing from a referendum.
To return to the idea that we might have a referendum, which I think would not be a good idea because I do not think it is the right way to do it, it would be better at least on that single point than this dog's dinner of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, and I have a fairly good idea of what most people's answer would be, because a recent opinion poll, quoted by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) in an extremely interesting article, shows that only some 14 per cent. of the members of the


Scottish National Party itself want complete separation, although, as the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton has just told us, that is her party's official policy.
Of course, whatever way that particular referendum went, it would not suit the Liberals, because, as far as one can make out, the Liberals favour the federal solution, and that, as other speakers have pointed out, shows the hon. Members Bill in an even stranger light, because although presumably, the federal system for Scotland and Wales would mean a federal system for England, no provision whatever is made for consulting the unfortunate English about something which concerns them all extremely directly.
For all these reasons I hope that the hon. Member will take his Bill away and lose it. I am afraid I have to catch an aeroplane—at least, I should say I hope to catch an aeroplane—and therefore, will not be able to vote, but I hope that I have made my attitude to the Bill abundantly clear. It seems to me that it could not be better described than it was by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) when he called it "an irresponsible Bill likely to produce an irresponsible result." It can only confuse an already confused issue. I have no doubt—and this is clear from all kinds of things, and has been for a good long time—that the people of Scotland, and, indeed, of Wales, want more say in the conduct of their own affairs, and should have more say, and will get more say, but even in this age of public opinion polls—and the Bill is really a thinly-disguised public opinion poll—I do not think it is the right way to bring about that result, still less to work out its modalities.

1.28 p.m.

Mr. Fred Evans: During the debate there have been many implications that those on this side of the House who will oppose the Bill are necessarily people who have no interest and certainly no faith in devolution. I would rebut them immediately. I think that it ii going to be some answer in Wales and in Scotland that we do have some form of devolution.
I think it not only true of Wales and Scotland but a fact in many countries in the world today. Indeed, the urge to devolution is almost an instinctive re- 
action on the part of the individual, to protect himself from being depersonalised any further in a world of gigantic scientific and technological advances, so that, while distance is shrinking through the development of communications, he at the the same time is made to feel more remote, more isolated, and inside his own personality he is shrinking back into himself. That is one of the reasons why, I feel, in the not too distant future we shall see a new concentration on family life. This is why in Wales and Scotland devolution has become such an important issue, and why ignoring devolution would be such a dangerous act of folly, both in Britain and elsewhere.
To come to the referendum, I largely agree with the cogent arguments put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie). His attitude is correct, and it is an attitude which is echoed in Wales, the Western Mail, which calls itself the national paper of Wales, has been mentioned. I would hardly say that it is a supporter of the Labour Party. Indeed, it is claimed that it gives far too much prominence to the Tory point of view and, now that Toryism is getting weaker in Wales, to the Welsh Nationalist point of view. It was felt at one moment that it was becoming not a Thomson paper but a Plaid Cymru paper. During the last six months the paper has given detailed examination to devolution in Wales; it has held polls and run a sustained series of articles, recently producing an editorial, arising directly out of the publication of this Bill, which turned its face against the idea of a referendum.
The arguments put forward were, first, that a referendum was far too blunt an instrument to measure accurately all the aspects of the situation in Wales, which is so highly fraught with emotionalism; secondly, that the electorate had insufficient access to information. Both these points were made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentland. The Western Mail is not a supporter of the Labour Party, and I shall, therefore, be content to accept the arguments of my opponents in this respect.
In discussing plebiscites, the House may be interested in this extract from a South Wales paper last Tuesday night:

LARGER WALES MOVE BY PLAID

Swansea West branch of Plaid Cymru want the people of Herefordshire and Shropshire


to be allowed to have a plebiscite to decide whether they want to be incorporated in Wales.
At their meeting, with Mr. leun ap Gwent in the Chair…

The Welshmen will understand that—
…it was agreed to put forward a resolution to the Party's Annual Conference about the plebiscite…".

This conjured up a vision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales leaving Cardiff General station in front of a group of stony-faced Welshmen, arriving in Paddington to be greeted with delirious joy and hastening to this House clutching his piece of paper and assuring hon. Members that all would be well because the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) had assured him that he had no further territorial ambitions. If referenda result in developments of this sort, I say, quite definitely, "No".

I agree with much of what has been said about the four choices. I have for 30 years been a teacher and a headmaster, and no one in the House realises more than I do the difficulty of communicating knowledge to other people. The first question that is to be asked is whether people are satisfied with the present system of government. It is unlikely that anyone will be satisfied, and confusion will arise, which no political party will be able to dispel. For example, hon. Members know that about half the problems which they have to face both personally and by correspondence are local authority problems, and there will be confusion between local and national government. To explain to our people what federalism means and the different types of federalism would be a tremendous task.

The one plain question which could be answered is whether people want total separation, but even here we cannot in fairness ask people to decide this important constitutional issue, with its vast implications for the future of their grandchildren and great-grandchildren, on the basis of insufficient knowledge.

Mr. Hooson: Is the hon. Gentleman not putting the classical argument for an enlightened oligarchy? This is the argument which was put forward against the extension of the franchise; that people did not understand it, and that it should be left to those who did.

Mr. Evans: Not at all. I would suggest that, in addition to the normal vehicles of information through political parties, the Government should undertake to ensure that the information is collected and that it percolates through to the people who have to make the decision. I would rebut any idea that an oligarchy was implied in what I have said.
In Wales the referendum would become a miniature by-election accompanied by the high emotionalism of recent by-elections in Wales. I have no complaint about this, but it would not produce a situation in which decisions could be reached with any degree of objectivity and I am sure that it would not be for the benefit of Wales.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman has said that he is a teacher. Surely he knows that all political problems are complex, whether they are presented in the form of a referendum or in his own manifesto; I do not understand the distinction. Secondly, objectivity has not been particularly noteworthy in this House.

Mr. Evans: I accept the second point. I realise the difficulties of communication from my own work. I agree that all political problems are complex, but dealing with a collection of problems in a party manifesto is rather different from dealing with the life of what is claimed by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) to be a nation.
The last of the four questions would evoke a large volume of replies, but it may be that all the implications would not be known. In Wales the knowers have probably worked out the implications of complete separatism, and they speak with mixed voices. Some members of the Nationalist Party do not want total separatism; others do not want economic separatism. The hon. Member for Carmarthen wants financial separatism but not economic separatism. If this confusion exists in the minds of the main protagonists, how much greater will be the confusion of ordinary people?
I hope that on grounds of genuine care for the people of Wales and Scotland, the Bill will meet the fate which it deserves.

1.40 p.m.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: This Measure proposes a method by which the people of Wales and Scotland can indicate the way in which their own national futures may be developed and organised. I wish to urge upon the House that the fundamental issue here is who shall decide the national futures of Wales and Scotland. It is not how the people of the two nations should make their will known which is the fundamental question, but whose will shall determine the conditions of life in Wales and Scotland.
The Nationalist answer to it is the democratic one. Plaid Cymru contends that the national future of Wales is a matter to be decided by the people most involved; that is, by the people of Wales. A referendum is one way of ascertaining the will of the people. Once that will is made clear, it is the duty of the Establishment to act in accordance with it.
The Government and the political parties of England have no moral right to oppose or thwart in any way the expressed will of the Welsh people—

Mr. Fred Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will refer to a "section of the Welsh people", because I am as Welsh as he is and have lived in Wales.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): That is not a point of order. The hon. Gentleman is intervening in the debate.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I was just making the general proposition that it is the will of the people—not of one section—which should prevail. I was going on to say that, in any case, once the Welsh and Scots nations are awakened fully and determined to live as free nations, nothing can stop them having national status. They have at their disposal the strongest moral force in the world—the power of nationalism. That power is strong enough to enable the Welsh people, small in number though we are—only 5 per cent. of the population of the island—to achieve that degree of political freedom on which they set their minds, whatever may be the opposition in Whitehall and Westminster.
Just as the national freedom of Czechoslovakia today is being defended by the people of that country without the

use of violence, so, too, can the national freedom of Wales be won and must be won without the use of violence.

Mr. Maclennan: In referring to the Czechoslovakian situation, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that one of the great strengths of that country has been the united front of the two nations which go to make up that State—the Slovaks and the Czechs.

Mr. Evans: Both nations have constitutional equality and a similar status inside the Czechoslovak State. They both have governments of their own inside the Federal State—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course they do.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: They do now.

Mr. Evans: Unlike Plaid Cymru, the English political parties do not believe that national freedom can be defended or won without the use of violence; hence the thousands of millions of£s which are spent annually on methods and weapons of violence. But, in Wales, we are determined to win our freedom without shedding a drop of blood. I liked the words spoken a fortnight ago by the Rector of Prague University who said:
We cannot use force. Our people must live by the force of their ideals and spiritual values.
I hope that the House will agree that the State should serve the nation. Wales, alas, has no State to serve her. I hope, too, that the House will agree that the Government should implement the will of the people—

Mr. James Griffiths: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, if the people of Wales declare that they want independence, they have a moral right to it. However, his party is fighting every seat at the next General Election, and it will put its views before the people. Will he then accept that the result will be the decision of the people of Wales?

Mr. Evans: Of course. That is the democratic way of expressing the will of the people. Of course, we shall abide by the will of the people expressed in that way.
In Wales today, we have no government to implement our will as a nation. A referendum is one way of ascertaining the will of the people, but—

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that experience of referenda in general shows that only a very small percentage of the electorate vote in them. For example, only 29·8 per cent. voted on whether to open pubs in Wales on the Sabbath. This cannot be the will of the people.

Mr. Evans: There have not been many referenda held outside Switzerland, where they are the normal procedure. In a recent one in Australia, there was an 80 per cent. vote. However, the hon. Gentleman's point is an argument against democracy itself. In local government elections, for example, one often has only a 30 per cent. vote. I am sure that he would not suggest that that is an argument against elections.
A referendum is one way of ascertaining the people's will, but the will of the people can be and often is made known in other ways. My point here is that the Government do not take note of the will of the people of Wales and implement it. If they do not do it today, how likely are they to organise a referendum?
I want to give some recent examples of this. Through their political parties, including the Regional Council of Labour, trade unions and local authorities, the Welsh people have made known their desire for an elected national council. But we do not have an elected national council. Instead, we have another advisory body which is quite useless. The people of Wales have shown that they wanted a national water board. The Labour Party included a reference to it in their 1964 manifesto. But the will of the people of Wales has not been implemented. We have no national water board.
The will of the people of Wales was for work and not unemployment. In the famous July package of 1966, unemployment was deliberately created by the Government, against the will of the people. The people of Wales wanted equality for the Welsh language. We have not even had equal validity for the Welsh language. We wanted a countryside commission, but were fobbed off with yet another advisory committee.
The people of Wales wanted and were promised an economic development plan. We had another useless White Paper which did not begin to be an economic development plan. The people of Wales did not want their system of local government to be destroyed, but the Government are determined to destroy it. The people of Wales did not want Cwm Tryweryn drowned, and they were united in their opposition to it. It was expressed in this House by hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies, who voted—

Mr. William Edwards: Taking up the hon. Gentleman's last assertion, is not this the tragedy of the situation, in that, when Cwm Tryweryn was being drowned, he stood as a candidate in my constituency where it is situated, and his vote went down substantially in the election?

Mr. Evans: The fact remains that the people of Wales were more united on this issue than on any other. Incidentally, it was not the issue on which the election was fought, of course. The opposition to the drowning of this valley was democratic, political and constitutional, but this House allowed Liverpool to drown that valley, riding roughshod over the opposition to the proposal and thus showing its contempt for constitutionally, politically and democratically expressed opinion.
With this kind of record, what hope is there of any Government at Westminster abiding by the will of the Welsh people as expressed in a referendum? The attitude of English Governments towards Wales has always been paternalistic and imperialistic—paternalist in that they always know better than the Welsh what is good for them, and imperialist in that their order has always ensured the ruthless exploitation of the human and material resources of Wales without regard for the will of the Welsh people and for the benefit of the community, which politicians usually call Britain when they remember not to call it England.
The proper development of these resources for the benefit of the Welsh nation has never been the first concern of Government in London, however unctuously their Members and supporters profess their anxiety to do only that which is best for Wales.
Both the Labour and Conservative Parties are declared unionist parties. I do not believe for a moment that either a Labour or a Conservative Government would organise referenda in Wales or in Scotland on the self-government issue.

Mr. James Griffiths: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by unionist parties?

Mr. Evans: It means that both parties put in the forefront of their policy the integration of Wales in what is sometimes called the United Kingdom, but what was, when we were incorporated in it, England.

Mr. James Griffiths: I am glad to have that elucidated. Do I gather that the hon. Gentleman and his party stand for separation, not for union?

Mr. Evans: We stand for complete self-government. We stand for Dominion or Commonwealth status, as it is called. We have said this in every election that we have fought. It has been our policy for more than 30 years. We stand for Commonwealth status, which is self-government within the Commonwealth. We approve the idea of Dominion status and we should like to see the Commonwealth idea applied in the United Kingdom situation, giving equal status to each of the separate nations of these islands. We stand for equality of status with the other nations of these islands and we stand for national freedom.

Mr. William Edwards: Could the hon. Gentleman elucidate the situation? Does he agree, in stating his policy, with the policy enunciated by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing)?

Mr. Evans: I have stated that the policy of my party is that of Commonwealth status. That is a pretty close definition of our aim. That is our political objective. It means not only national status, but international status. It means giving us a place in the life of the world.
My point is that no Labour or Conservative Government will organise a referendum in our country, because they know that the result would be a substantial majority in favour of an extensive measure of self-government. This has been discussed for generations. It has been discussed since the end of the last century. All the polls which have

recently been held show that in Wales, as in Scotland, there is a big majority in favour of a great measure of self-government for our country.

Mr. Fred Evans: Sixteen per cent. for complete separation.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Sixty per cent. want what is called federal status, but there is a big majority in favour of an extensive measure of self-government. This is well known and has been established by all the polls, and the by-elections that we have had, including Caerphilly. It is well known, indeed, that the majority of the people of Wales want some form of self-government. This is why we will have no referendum. The Government do not want to make this clearer than it is already. The will of the Welsh people is well known, but the two major political parties are determined to thwart that will. That is why this Tory-Labour Establishment will never permit a referendum which would make that clearer. The first concern of those parties is to maintain their power. That is why the Labour Party dropped self-government for Wales from its programme in the 1930s. It was not because it was not good for Wales—it knew that it was good for Wales and its leaders had said so—but because it thought that it was not good for the Labour Party.
The Conservative Party has always been openly and uncompromisingly opposed to any measure of national freedom for Wales and Scotland. Its overwhelming concern is the power and the prestige of Britain—never the freedom and welfare of the Welsh nation. What hope is there that either of these two parties will organise referenda?
The Under-Secretary of State said that we need more facts. We have been discussing these facts for generations. What have the parties been doing if they have not been putting the facts before the people all these years? When we tried to put the facts before the people we were banned from television and radio. That is what the two major parties did to us. They say that they want the facts put before the people. Yet in 1955, when the B.B.C. in Wales proposed to have a series of party political broadcasts, the Government were called in by the Labour Party, in collusion with the Tories, because it was a united front on this matter, to ban all party political


broadcasts outside the official series in London. That ban was maintained until two years ago, when we were allotted five minutes in a year. That has been the situation. They say that they want the facts. Let us give the facts to the people. Let us have opportunities to give them the facts on radio, on television and in the Press, instead of having this suppression of the facts that we have had over the years.
Suppression went so far that the matter was raised in this House by an hon. Member who said that the Welsh bulletins were dripping with Welsh Nationalist propaganda, and he insisted on an inquiry into the matter. But the Ince Committee of Inquiry found that we were getting less than our due share of items in the bulletins. But that did not stop the B.B.C. reducing our share still further. It was frightened. That was the whole purpose of the exercise.
It is hypocrisy to call for facts when the major political parties want to suppress the facts on these issues. In this situation, referenda in Wales and Scotland are just not on. Even if they were on, they would not have the value that they could have unless both sides had equal freedom on the air and in the Press.
It is well established that the Labour and Conservative Parties are not only totally opposed to the policy that my party and I stand for, but, during the last generation, they have been totally opposed to any measure of self-government for Wales. They are totally opposed even to the measure of self-government enjoyed by the 22 cantons of Switzerland. Each of those cantons has more power than the provinces of Canada, the states of the United States, the provinces of Germany, Italy or Australia. They would call this separation. They will not allow Wales and Scotland to have even that measure of control over their own affairs. They are opposed to all measures of control in Wales and Scotland.
That the ancient nations of these two countries should enjoy even a measure of provincial status is for them unthinkable. Not because it would not be good for Wales and Scotland—and I emphasise this the whole time—but because it would not be good for what is sometimes called

Britain, which is a synonym for England, or for the Labour and Conservative Parties.
These are the considerations which decide what happens in Wales and Scotland always, not our own welfare. It is never the welfare of Wales and Scotland or the freedom of Wales and Scotland which decide the policies in these English political parties; it is their own interests as parties or the interests of the bigger community.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: The hon. Gentleman states that it is only the interests of the Government and the other major parties in Britain, which he terms England. Is it not a fact that many parts of England, like the part that I represent, are outside the development areas, whereas Wales and Scotland are favourably treated by this Government in this respect? Therefore, how can the hon. Gentleman argue that the Government are merely giving special treatment to England? I feel that it is the other way round, if anything.

Mr. Evans: All the facts show that Wales and Scotland have never been put at the top of the considerations which the Government have in mind in formulating their policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—sometimes the interests of Wales and Scotland coincide with those of England and we are then in a happy position. But otherwise it is a different matter, as we see when we look at the consequences in any sphere of Welsh life. In the cultural sphere, we have declined over the last few generations. Our language has become the language of a quarter of the people, not the whole. We have higher unemployment than England. We have tremendous migration, yet we still have unemployment. There is a lack of balanced development in Wales. The whole story shows that the interests of Wales are not put first by any English political party or Government. They put other interests before ours. We need Governments in Wales who will put our interests first.
Very soon devices like referenda and commissions will be supererogatory and irrelevant. The day is not far off when the nations of Wales and Scotland will have the political strength, channelled through their national parties, to compel the English Government to yield to them, not only provincial status, but national


status, to yield to them a status which will take them at last into the life of the world and which will give them their due place in international life. Wales will then take her place in the United Nations Organisation with the 35 nations which are smaller than her in population. She will play her part there. The day is not far distant when this will happen. The Welsh people will have nothing to do with a narrow, inward-looking nationalism which would crib and confine them inside a provincial status. They will want to see their nation a co-citizen of the world playing a useful part in creating a stable and a peaceful and a just world order. Referendum or not, it is the people of Wales who will decide the national future of Wales.

Mr. James Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is the leader of a party. He is here as a result of a by-election, by the vote of the people. His party proposes to put candidates up in every Welsh constituency. We are, therefore, entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman to tell the people plainly what his party stands for. He said that the Labour Party, to which I have belonged all my life, and which represents the overwhelming majority of the people of Wales, was a unionist party. He is not in a united party. Does the hon. Gentleman now say to Wales that his party wants complete separation from the rest of the United Kingdom? The people of Wales are entitled to an answer.

Mr. Evans: I have already answered that question as fully as I can in the time allowed me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If the House will give me time, I will go into the matter more closely. I shall be glad to do so. We stand for Commonwealth status for Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "Separation."] Hon. Members may call it by any emotive term they like. The fact is that we stand for Commonwealth status. We stand for a status which will give us equality of status with the other members of the Commonwealth of nations. Is not that clear enough? Hon. Members may call it "separatism" if they like. It does not mean economic separation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members may jeer and laugh as much as they like. They have not accepted what is an elementary fact. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am being pressed to

answer this question, so I will say what we stand for.
We stand for Commonwealth status. We also stand for a common market with the other three nations of these islands. When we have this Commonwealth status, there will be no passports; there will be a common citizenship. There will be no tolls or tariffs on goods passing back and forth between our countries. There will be no border in that sense. There will be freedom of movement for people, goods and capital. Thus there will be no economic separation. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary thinks it is a joke, but this situation now obtains in many parts of the world. In the Common Market countries there is economic integration. What economic separation is there between Belgium and Holland? There are fiscal, constitutional and administrative separation, but there is no economic separation, because there is that freedom of movement back and forth. It is one common economy. That is the situation which will exist in Wales when we achieve Commonwealth status.

Mr. Ogden: On a point of order. If anyone outside the House is to believe all that has been said by the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) and the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans), I must be one of those English Members who are keeping one of their feet on the faces of the poor in Scotland and Wales. The Bill excludes any mention of England, but every hon. Member will agree that this subject has something to do with English Members. So far, the debate has included only Scottish and Welsh Members. I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it worth while English Members sitting in the Chamber waiting to put up some defence for England, or will this debate be a limited one from which England, which is at least a partner with Scotland and Wales, will be excluded?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The Chair will bear in mind all those considerations in making its selection. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would wait on the possibility of catching Mr. Speaker's eye.

2.6 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: Perhaps what I have to say will fit in a little more closely with the case which


my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) wishes to advance. I would dearly have loved to have been able directly to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing). However, I am privileged to follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans).
If it comes to questions of culture, descent and place of residence, I take second place to no Scottish Nationalist. I am sure that my hon. Friends take no second place to any Welsh Nationalists. I consider myself to be a Scot. If I am asked to write down my nationality at an hotel, I usually write "Scottish". If I am asked whether I am Scottish or British, I very definitely make it clear that I am British first and foremost, because "British" includes the Scottish, the Welsh and the English: and it includes the Northern Irish.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) described this as a unique occasion in that the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton was sitting behind him. A few years ago Motherwell was represented here by a gentleman who got in on a Scottish Nationalist ticket, but he did not represent Motherwell for long.
There is always this argument about a nation: "Scotland the nation" is dragged in. I am speaking now only for Scotland. I know as much about Scotland as any crowd of those who talk in terms of Scottish nationalism. I recall with a measure of shame the occasion when the hon. Lady took her seat in the House. Outside there was a crowd of Scottish Nationalists with bagpipes, tammies, and the rest of it. They tried to sing "Scots wha hae": and they did not even know the words.
I will not go into the question of Scottish culture. The Welsh may claim to have a language, but very few Scots have any other language than that of the English. The top writers, what we call the old Makars—Dunbar, Barbour and Henryson—wrote in a language which was the language of Chaucer. They were a section of the people who talked the Gaelic, but increasingly they were pushed up to the Highlands. The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) is there, with his Highland names. I have three

Highland names—three "Macs" from my ancestry. I am not bragging about it; I am simply stating my claim to talk in this way.

Mr. MacArthur: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will mention his middle name.

Mr. Lawson: It is a good one. I am staking my claim to talk in these terms. If we extract the English from these islands there will be little left.

Mr. Hooson: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, so far the hon. Member has made no mention of the Bill, or of anything that it contains. As other hon. Members have been called to order by the Chair for not speaking to the Bill, I should like to draw your attention to the situation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I shall call the hon. Member to order when he has exhausted the patience of the Chair.

Mr. Lawson: I had prepared a speech on the Bill. The hon. Member butts in. Perhaps he does not like what I am saying. Let us remember the speech made by the hon. Member for Hamilton. Did that refer to the Bill? What about the speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen? Did it relate to the Bill? Not a bit of it. If what I am saying is unpopular with them, I am a person who will come up for re-election in a seat that once returned a Scottish Nationalist, but I shall stand here and say that I am first of all British, and stand for a united nation.
I submit that if the proposals contained in the Bill were carried out and there was a separation of the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish, there would be no United Kingdom. There would be no British nation. There is no separate Scottish nation now. I say that weighing my words fully. There is no separate Scottish nation as distinct from the British nation. We are part of the British nation. I am not speaking for the Welsh; it is for them to speak for themselves. But I am not ashamed to make this point. I repeat: I stand for Britain first.
If the proposals in the Bill were carried out it would mean the destruction of the British people. Do we want to


see that? Do we want to be left with the English, the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish and, perhaps, the people from the Isle of Man and the various little islands in the Channel? Carried to its logical conclusion, the Bill means the break-up of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Carmarthen and the hon. Member for Hamilton want it every way. They want political separation but not economic separation. According to them, the economy will function as it is functioning now.
If the Bill is passed, that question will be decided by nine-tenths of the population. We cannot have a Measure demanding separation in one form or another without having regard to the wishes of the majority. I have many reservations about the kind of devolution to which some of my colleagues refer. We cannot take matters as far as this without stirring up some of the feeling that has been manifested by my hon. Friends behind me, if the nine-tenths of the population represented by England are not to have a voice. They would have to have a voice.
If we pass a Measure that seems to disregard them, they may well say, "All right—have your separate Scotland; have your separate Wales; have your separate Ireland. We will have our separate England and see what happens. We, the English, will decide whether or not you can come in freely. We, the English, will decide whether you require a passport to come to Wembley to watch a football match." [Laughter.] This is no joke. They would say, "We, the English, will decide whether you shall be treated as an alien in our country—whether you should be regarded as an immigrant, and whether or not we will turn you out."
It was not very long ago that I read of a Londoner who refused to allow his daughter to marry a Scot on the ground that he did not want her to marry a foreigner. What I am saying goes to the bare bones of the matter. We are a united nation. We, the Scots, are very much the smaller part of it. We, the Scots—I emphasise this—have no reason to feel that we have been given a raw deal. The Irish have a long history of feeling against England, but that is a different matter. There is no reason why any Scot should feel that his country

has been given a raw deal. For most of the last century the Scots were in a dominating position. If we have declined recently we have done so because the Scots have not measured up. They have been too ready to pull up their roots and clear out—including clearing out to England. Some of the most nationalist Scottish people I know live in London. We have special Scottish clubs in London.
There is the story of the by-election in Nuneaton. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) is not here at the moment, but he may have heard the story of the person who knocked at a door in the Nuneaton area and asked the occupants for whom they were voting. They replied that they were not voting at all because they were Scottish Nationalists—and yet they were working and living in the Nuneaton area.
Let us realise what the Bill would do. There has been constant agitation about Scottish nationalism and about raw deals for Scotland. The group with which I have been associated for many years has never argued that Scotland has had a raw deal. It has always argued that if we left things to the Scots it would be a bad day for Scotland. We have always argued that the Government from Westminster should intervene to rectify the imbalance which was growing up in Scotland. We have always urged Westminster to intervene. The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire will agree with me. We have always urged the Government to take more and more responsibility for the location of industry, and the rest. Governments—even the right hon. Gentleman's own Government—have begun to do this. If I compliment my Government on anything it is on the fact that they have been trying to carry out this policy.
This policy is now challenged at every turn. The grey areas and the rest are all challenging this policy, but if it were altered and reversed it would still be a "blue do" for Scotland. Scotland has not enough of her own resources to be able to provide her people with the standard of living which they are now enjoying. It would be a very bad day if we so decided matters as to generate amongst the English a feeling against the Scots or the Welsh. We are getting


a very good bargain. In the past Scotland has played its part, and I want it to continue to do so.
I now turn to the question of the referendum—or referenda, in the plural. This is no novel thing. To any hon. or right hon. Member who thinks that it is I recommend the study of a book that has been extant for many years and is, in my opinion, too seldom studied, namely "Industrial Democracy" by Sidney and Beatrice Webb. It was written in the 1890s and it deals with this problem, among many others. It says:
Those who believe that pure democracy implies the direct decision by the mass of the people on any question as it arises will find this ideal realised without check or limit in the history of the larger Trade Unions between 1834 and 1870.
In the trade union movement for that quite long period the regular basis of government was what was called the referendum and initiative. Members could individually promote questions, and many unions circulated journals among the branches and members. Propositions could be put down even by individual members, and initiatives were decided on by mass vote and became the law of the organisation. The Webbs continued:
But…half a century of practical experience of the Initiative and Referendum led, not to its extension, but to an ever stricter limitation of its application.
In many cases the most absurd decisions were taken. The book cites the case of one union the executive of which decided that something was not industrial injury but illness. In one year no fewer than 17 decisions on the matter were reversed on a mass vote.
The Webbs described how the Cumberland miners decided by a large majority to join the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. They had been in the Federation for only a month when they were asked whether they would abide by its policy and rules and refused to do so. Since there had been a reduction in the wages in their area they were asked whether they would fight for the return of the money to which they were entitled, and they refused to do so by a majority vote of two to one, and also refused to support their fellows in other areas who were fighting for equal pay- 
ment in the areas. Shortly afterwards they decided by a big majority to join again, but after they had done so the same question came up and they again refused, this time by a five to one majority. The most absurd decisions can be taken.
The mere counting of heads does not make a democratic society. The example of capital punishment has been given. I think that most hon. Members would agree that if there were a referendum on the reimposition of flogging and capital punishment there would be a big majority in favour. If there were a referendum on public hangings, I doubt whether there would be enough people to say that capital punishment should be in private.
I have as high an opinion of my fellow men as any hon. Member, but on many matters it is the duty of the politician and the Government to weigh the pros and cons, to think out the consequences and say, "There is the line we should follow, even if it is unpopular." The present Government are often attacked for expediency, which means getting one's ear to the ground, listening to what people are saying and trying to meet their wishes. That does not make for good government, which means having a Government prepared to stand up and follow a line that may be unpopular if they judge it to be right. The Government always have far more of the evidence than the ordinary man in the street has.
Look at the absurdity of the television camera coming round and the interviewer asking people what they think about this, that and the other. It would be absurd if we tried to shape national policy by such methods. It is not that the Government are made up of people of a different sort, but they have access to so much more information, and they have responsibility for the decisions taken. The Bill does not ask the people to establish the facts.
If the word "separation" were used, it would scare the people of Scotland. One can make "devolution" mean almost as much as separation. Probably the majority would say "Yes" to devolution, but that does not mean that I think that we should act on such a majority. I would fight that, because it would be injurious to the people I


represent. It would be injurious to pull out of the United Kingdom. Just as I hope to see the United Kingdom become part of a larger area, so I want to see Scotland remain part of the United Kingdom.
I deplore hon. Members talking as if they were speaking for a whole people. The hon. Member for Hamilton talks about "We, the Scots", as if all the Scots were talking. The hon. Member for Carmarthen talks about the whole Welsh people, as if he were talking for them. The hon. Lady is not talking for the Scots. If I am wrong, I am prepared to take the consequences. I believe that this type of pressure is harmful to us, and should be resisted. I shall resist it with all my might.

2.26 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) has enabled us to have a day's debate on constitutional matters and the devolution of functions of government in Scotland and Wales. I shall address my remarks mainly to the effects in Scotland.
Whilst I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate because the hon. Gentleman had the good fortune to be in the first eight of the Private Members' Ballot, however much I have tried I cannot find his proposals practicable. From something the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) said, it seemed that we had been consulted about the drafting of the Bill. I must therefore make it clear that as far as I know we were certainly not consulted on its drafting. What I received was a letter dated 27th January from the hon. Gentleman—and I thank him for writing to me—in which he asked for my views and those of my party on the Bill as already drafted. He also inquired whether there would be a free vote in the Conservative Party. I was able to tell him that there would be, and that is still the case if there is to be a vote.
The hon. Member for Hamilton suggested that it would be possible for an hon. Member to introduce a Clause enabling the voters in England to have a referendum. But that is impossible because the Long Title restricts the scope of the Bill to Scotland and Wales.
Four possible courses are proposed in the Bill, and the electorate in Scotland

and Wales would choose by a new method. I am not against the idea of a referendum as a method to be used in certain circumstances. I sympathise with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) on this. I have an open mind on trying new methods. I do not use the argument that because something has not been done before we must not do it now, but it seems clear from all the study of the experience of referenda in other countries that success depends on a simple question being put. A referendum is appropriate only where there is a simple clear question, preferably where the answer is "Yes" or "No".
It is also clear that it is appropriate only where it affects action in the near future in foreseeable circumstances, so that the voters can see that they are dealing with reality, and those who would vote would enjoy or suffer the consequences of their choice. I shall not elaborate, because my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Wylie) put that point very well.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: To get to a specific question, would the hon. Gentleman and his party agree to a referendum on whether there should be conscription?

Mr. Campbell: Perhaps we should save that for another occasion. As the hon. Gentleman knows, up to three weeks ago, when I was translated to my present duties, I was a vice-chairman of the Conservative Defence Committee. I should be delighted to go into those matters with the hon. Gentleman in a defence debate.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: It is very relevant.

Mr. Campbell: But not to this debate.
In the Bill, we are presented with a complicated choice between four courses. The ordinary man or woman who does not study constitutional matters, unless he happens to be interested in them, is unlikely to know all that these courses entail and the likely consequences of their adoption. Why should he? Those who were asked to choose could be extremely intelligent people at the top of their fields, perhaps professors at universities, dealing with quite different subjects. Why should they have to know


about all these points? They would have to spend several days of their leisure time studying these matters before they could make a considered choice.
Another defect is that the four courses have been chosen quite arbitrarily, unless, as one of my hon. Friends suggested they have been chosen to try to get the answer "yes" to choice (c). Otherwise, they are arbitrary. Other courses could have been included—for example, the possibility of a Scottish assembly working in association with the United Kingdom Parliament, which is not included. The possibility of regional councils after the Scottish Royal Commission's Report—or any other major changes which it may propose in Scotland—is completely ignored.

Mr. James Davidson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to elucidate a little more about this assembly which the Conservative Party has been talking about, since none of us knows what it means. I have put it to him that I would be prepared to include it in the choices offered in the Bill if we had known what it entailed.

Mr. Campbell: I am glad to say that I propose to say a good deal about this later on. I shall be doing a great deal more than the hon. Member did, since he told us absolutely nothing about the federal system under (c), although I asked him about some of the important points, and whether England would be one unit or divided into several.
Under (c), which refers to some kind of federal system, in the wording of the Bill, "internal affairs" are included. But does that include economic and financial affairs and the power to levy separate and different taxation? If so, that would make it a very different kind of federal system from one that did not. What does that phrase cover? Anyone taking part in such a referendum should know this.
In Scotland, we should know what kind of federal system this will be. Will it be a system in which England is a single unit? If so, would England have the same weight of voting as Scotland and Wales, England having 10 times the population of Scotland? Or is England to be divided into several federal units? If so, that should concern voters in

England and Scotland. In that case, would those living in England be able to express their views in the referendum? As I said, nothing could be added to the Bill to allow a referendum in England, because this is excluded by the Long Title. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not explain these points. I could have done without the details of how much the proposal would cost and would have preferred some elucidation.
Would there be an English Parliament in the federal system, with an English Government? Presumably there will be a Cabinet and Prime Minister in Scotland and Wales. These are important questions, but the Liberal Party has not composed its own internal arguments on this. Press reports have shown that some Liberal Members are in favour of an English Parliament and that others are not. Some are in favour of splitting England into federal units and others are not. The Bill itself says nothing on these matters. I hope that, if another Liberal catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, we shall be given some elucidation.
There could be different answers to all these questions producing several different forms of federal system. A citizen expected to vote might be in favour of one form, perhaps England in six or seven different units, but be strongly opposed to another form because it made England an overpowering element in the system if it were one unit. One could bitterly oppose one federal solution but favour another. The Bill gives no opportunity to distinguish.
The hon. Member said that some of these other combinations could be inserted in Committee. I suggest that, if they were, we would have a Bill with a Clause 1 containing about 20 separate paragraphs or more, because many combinations are possible. This would make a referendum much more complicated and it would be an even more unsuitable subject to be dealt with in this way.
I believe firmly in Burke's theory that a Member of Parliament is elected to look into complicated matters like this and to exercise his judgment on behalf of his constituents, and that he should do what he believes is in their best interests. Most of our constituents would not have the leisure time necessary to study what is involved. I would consider it an abdication of our duty as


Members of Parliament if we allowed these matters to be referred, as a kind of Gallup Poll, as it has been described, to the direct choice of the electorate.
There is also the danger that a referendum could over-simplify an issue, even when the question is simple. I will give an example. Suppose that we had a referendum—the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) might be interested in this—on whether or not to abolish Income Tax. I have a good idea what the result would be, because it is an unpopular tax, but if the electors knew all the factors involved, including the possible alternatives and the likely adverse consequences, they would probably give a different answer. Most of them would want a reduction in Income Tax, perhaps a considerable one, but for practical reasons they would probably not want the results of abolition.
Therefore, by the form and the questions put, a misleading result might come from a referendum, giving exactly the opposite answer to the one desired by the majority of those who took part in it.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no power to stop interventions, but there have been many and many hon. Members still wish to speak.

Mr. Campbell: Perhaps I will wait until later and then consider the hon. Gentleman's desire to intervene.
I have said that I cannot support the Bill, but the subjects that is raises are of great interest. Many months ago, all these possible courses and others came under intense study by a policy group appointed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in June, 1967. It had been working for nearly a year behind closed doors, until on 18th May last, in Perth, my right hon. Friend unveiled its recommendation in its interim report, that proposals for a Scottish assembly working in conjunction with the United Kingdom Parliament should be considered. This was put forward after study of other possibilities, including that of complete independence and separation, advocated by the Scottish National Party.
In the same speech on 18th May my right hon. Friend stated that a constitutional

committee should be established. I point out that this was in the same speech, because some of the Press have forgotten the sequence of events and have thought that it was suggested later. My right hon. Friend pointed out that the constitutional committee could examine these proposals for a Scottish Assembly and any others which were put to it, and he said that he hoped that the present Government would set up such a constitutional committee which would consist of distinguished representatives of Scottish and United Kingdom opinion well versed in constitutional matters. He also said that if the Government did not set up such a committee, he would invite such persons to form it.
The Government took action, but they acted very late in the day. They announced the establishment of their Constitutional Commission on 14th October, and its composition is still not arranged and it has not yet been able to start work. It has also to deal with the problems of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, Ulster and Wales besides Scotland. It can be seen that the Government got the message in the end, but they acted very late. They recognised that a Constitutional Commission was necessary, but setting it up has been very slow and its terms of reference are very wide.
It is therefore not surprising that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition went ahead last July and announced that he had invited a very strong and distinguished membership to form a constitutional committee for Scotland under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home). [An HON. MEMBER: "Including a judge."] I hear an hon. Member saying "including a judge". In answer to a question from me, the Home Secretary has announced that it is thought that a Scottish judge would be right for the Government's Constitutional Commission. This has raised a very interesting matter. I hope that a Government spokesman will tell us whether it is correct, as rumoured, that one of the reasons why the composition of the Commission is being held up is that the Government cannot find a suitable judge or a judge willing to serve on it. That is certainly the rumour and no doubt one or two hon. and right hon. Members opposite are sorry that they intervened on that point last summer.
The constitutional committee has been meeting and working and making progress. It is now likely to be held up simply because the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland has not yet reported and, as the Government announced a few days ago, is unlikely to report before early summer, although, according to one of the newspapers today, the English equivalent, the Redcliffe-Maud Commission, is likely to report next month. Indeed, according to the front page of one of the newspapers, some of its findings may already have been made public.
To some extent, the Government are responsible. If the initiative of our 1963 White Paper on the Reform of Government in Scotland had not been allowed to peter out, concrete proposals might now be before us for the reform of local government in Scotland. The original White Paper was produced for Scotland two years before the equivalent for England and Wales and we were therefore two years ahead in this difficult but desirable change.
As I have indicated, the constitutional committee is proceeding with its task. In addition, the Scottish Conservative Policy Group, after its interim report, has continued and is still continuing its studies in depth. It is identifying and tackling the problems which arise from proposals for federation, for an assembly, or any of the other possibilities for changing and improving our system. Since May, there has been public discussion and debate on the proposals for an assembly which were announced at an early stage for that purpose, so that it and the alternatives and other matters in connection with it could be discussed.
We are determined to find ways of improving government in Scotland. In particular, we are determined to find means, if practicable, of enabling busy and active individuals in Scotland to participate more in decisions affecting Scotland and Scottish legislation. That is our purpose, and I hope that the examination of the Assembly proposals will lead to a practicable and constitutional change which will improve our machinery of government and consultation.
I remind the House that the present system, the Scottish Grand Committee and so on, has evolved on the principle that it was of first importance in Scotland

that Scottish representatives should be here, in the Mother of Parliaments, in discussions at an early stage; and that they should do their work on Scottish legislation and Scottish business on the spot at Westminster in order that they should not be fobbed off later with working out the details of decisions which had already been taken at the centre.
This is still important, and I am one of those who consider that strong Scottish representation at Westminster is essential for Scotland, this despite the fact that recently Parliament's rôle may have been less formative at the early stages. There have been complaints from both sides of the House that Governments have been inclined to consult Parliament only at later stages. I for one welcome the idea of the Green Paper which has been put forward to try to counter that. We have an example, however, the Decimal Currency Bill, one in which I was involved, when hon. Members on both sides of the House complained that the House was being used as a rubber stamp.
I recognise that it is part of the present Government's Socialist doctrine to impose uniformity. I recognise the sincerity of many hon. Members opposite in believing that they are uniformly spreading good and uniformly applying desirable policies. For example, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State have even said that they consider the Selective Employment Tax good for Scotland—and I believe them.

Mr. Speaker: There may be many things which the hon. Member would like to discuss; he must discuss the Bill.

Mr. Campbell: That was simply an example. None the less, it is essential to stop dictation from the centre, and probably only a change of Government will do that.
In addition, we must make improvements in machinery and adjust our system to meet the requirements of both today and tomorrow. Any changes should be carefully thought out and be workable and be clearly improvements. We are the party which is working hard and seriously on these questions.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West and his right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), according to the Press, have


been proposing some combination between the Liberals and the S.N.P., but their solutions for Scotland appear to be entirety different. The Liberals would like something, although it is very vague, on the lines of paragraph (c), but the S.N.P. has made it clear again today that it wants something on the lines of paragraph (d). The trouble is that the expression "Home rule" means something entirely different to different people. That expression ought to be banned, because people use it to mean different things. The S.N.P.—and this was confirmed today—clearly wishes Scotland to be a separate country, with separate decisions and separate membership of, for example, N.A.T.O. and the Common Market, in theory.

Mrs. Ewing: Mrs. Ewing indicated dissent.

Mr. Campbell: I will stick to the Common Market.

Mrs. Ewing: A very small point; we reject N.A.T.O. in its present form.

Mr. Campbell: That is perfectly clear. I am glad to be brought up to date by one part of the party anyway. I am not sure whether that is also the view of the member of the party—one is not certain whether he is still chairman—who resigned recently as candidate against me in my constituency. However, I am glad to have had that confirmation from the hon. Lady. It confirms that we could have a situation where England was in N.A.T.O. and Scotland not.

Mrs. Ewing: Yes.

Mr. Campbell: And where Scotland is in the Common Market and England not?

Mrs. Ewing: Yes.

Mr. Campbell: One could not have the economic integration which the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) talked about if one country was in the Common Market and the other not. The leadership of the Scottish National Party want separation for Scotland as a sovereign country and I do not think that this is understood by many people flirting with the idea of supporting that party. They do not understand that such a separate State would exist.

Mrs. Ewing: As the hon. Gentleman is addressing his remarks to my party, perhaps he will answer a question. Is he suggesting that everyone who votes for his party or the Labour Party knows exactly what they are voting for in relation to Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: Certainly, on a major and simple point like this—whether Scotland should be a separate country—no one is in doubt as to where the Conservative Party stands and I shall repeat our view.

Mr. James Davidson: Mr. James Davidson rose—

Mr. Campbell: There is not much time left and many other hon. Members wish to speak. It would be unfair if I continued to keep giving way.
From my knowledge and judgment, I am opposed to Scotland becoming a separate country. The words "freedom and independence" are high sounding and can be attractive slogans. But translate them into less money, less resources, less jobs, less houses and less pensions, and they are not fruitful for my constituents or for Scots in Scotland.

Miss Margaret Herbison: Hear, hear.

Mr. Campbell: All the resources of Britain are needed in order to help to develop the under-developed parts of Scotland. At a time when industrial nations are finding benefits in moving closer together, it would be retrograde to fragment Britain into separate units.
The hon. Lady referred to the United Nations. I was a member of our permanent delegation for three years. From my experience, I assure her that the other members of the United Nations are not going to accept Scotland as a separate member unless it is clearly shown that Scotland is a separate sovereign State. The kind of economic integration which the hon. Member for Carmarthen, as a Welsh Nationalist, advocated, would not be accepted by those in the United Nations who would be very suspicious that Britain was trying to get extra votes by splitting. It would not be as easy as the hon. Lady thinks.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Mr. Gwynfor Evans rose—

Mr. Campbell: I will not give way now. Perhaps there will be an opportunity shortly. Then the hon. Lady


compared Scotland as a small country with a new, emerging African country, Swaziland. But we are an ancient nation with an entirely different history and different traditions from Swaziland—a new country for which I have the greatest respect. To make such a comparison reflects a great difference between her attitude to Scotland and mine. I regard Scotland as an ancient country and as an important part of the United Kingdom and I would not talk about Scotland in the same breath as a new country emerging in Africa with different problems, background and circumstances.
The hon. Lady was also good enough to answer an intervention by me by turning it with a compliment, stating that Scotsmen had made a good contribution at the United Nations and should be permitted to make more. Here again she is wrong. It is because Britain is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council that she is there all the year round at the United Nations dealing with world problems as they come up. To be the 127th member of the Assembly, which is what Scotland would be if she joined today—and the Assembly meets only for two or three months in the year—would mean Scots would have very little opportunity to contribute. It is through permanent United Kingdom membership of the Security Council that Scotland and Scots can play a leading part in United Nations and world affairs.
If the hon. Lady is thinking of the elections to the Security Council, I remind her that the present average is such that Scotland, as a non-permanent member, would be a member of the Security Council for about two years out of about 24 years. So there is little scope there.
What I and my Scottish colleagues want is a fair deal for Scotland and more say by Scots in Scottish affairs. We have been engaged for some time in a realistic and active study of ways of achieving this. We are getting to grips with the difficult problems involved and we seem to be in advance of everyone else in this. We are not peddling supposed panaceas—for example, that we should become a separate country and then everything will come right. We are determined to find the most effective

system for the future. We hope that all those with open minds and the good of Scotland at heart will support us.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Again I remind the House that we have very little time left. Brief speeches will help. Many hon. Members have sat all day hoping to be called.

2.57 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I shall be very brief, the more so since this will be the second speech from the Government Front Bench. But I want to make two things clear both to the House and to people outside.
First, the views which have been expressed in opposition to a referendum have not necessarily been based upon rejection of the other propositions. For example, the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) expressed the wish for Parliaments for their respective countries, but both rejected a referendum. Therefore, it would be wrong for any hon. Member to suggest, as has been suggested on both benches below the Gangway, that these views are based, in this context, other than upon the concept of the referendum.
Secondly, I have been horrified by some of the things I have heard, and I want to emphasise, therefore, that patriotism is the prerogative of no individual or party. When patriotism is sullied and dirtied in this way, for political purposes, I for one not only reject that course but regard it as un-Welsh and un-Scottish. [Interruption.] I am asked to whom I am referring. I have been asked that, for example, by the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing), who said that she hoped that this issue would be discussed without sneering at one another's party. If I may say so, over the past year good people in Scotland who have reflected an understanding of the Scottish tradition have been condemned as Quislings and pseudo-Scots. The hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton is not immune from those who make such accusations, as hon. Members who read her speeches will know. There is a great difference between the


speeches which she makes in the House and the kind of venom to which she often lends herself North of the Border.

Mrs. Ewing: My speeches have been reported and can be checked by anyone who wishes to read them. I have never made accusations about Quislings or pseudo-Scots. The point which has been made is that this is a simple issue—in Scotland a burning issue—on which we are either "for or against". That is the point to which the Minister takes exception.

Mr. Buchan: That is the argument of which I complain—that if we are not for it we are against it. This is the slippery slope to the claim of patriotism.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen and the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton both very well know my record in this respect. Despite the abuse which I personally have been receiving for the last six weeks, they both know that at any rate until last year I contributed a great deal more to the development of Scottish consciousness than, for example, did the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton.
Reference has been made to the failure of the Scots coming down here to be able to sing "Scots, wha hae". A journalist pointed out that what is much more ironical is the fact that every S.N.P. Member coming down in the railway train carried sticking out of his pocket my book of Scottish folk songs. I have been concerned with developing this Scottishness, and I will not have my Scottishness and work for Scotland treated in the way that we have been hearing over the past year. Patriotism is not a prerogative of any individual.

Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend is dealing with the question of patriotism. Is he aware that the senior Vice-President of the Scottish Nationalist Party is on record as having said that a time will come when unless one is a member of the Scottish Nationalist Party, one is a traitor to Scotland.

Mr. Buchan: I do not know whether he said that, but no doubt my hon. Friend will verify it. Certainly things like that are being said by some.
Thirdly, it is not necessary in order to prove oneself a patriot that one should

hate other people. I want to make a clear distinction between a patriot and a Chauvinist.
This is the background against which the debate is taking place, and I want to deal with some of the points advanced by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson), because I believe that, like me, he genuinely cares for Scotland. The difficulty is that he puts the cart before the horse. He says that first they have to demonstrate their wishes and then it will be left to the Government, those in power, to work out how to implement them. That would be fine if implementation could necessarily take place.
But if we look at different points in the Bill, we find it very difficult to know what they mean. Paragraph (a) reads,
to leave the existing system of Government unaltered".
Everyone knows—and this is why the hon. Member has been accused of merely adopting a device to save the failing political fortunes of the Liberal Party—that there is no one, from the Prime Minister downwards, who does not want to alter the existing system of government. One of the reasons why we have been returned to office is to alter the existing system of government, to improve it and to modernise it. There must, of course, be a 100 per cent. answer to that question—or, rather, a zero answer, because it was put in a negative fashion. One of my hon. Friends described it as a "Hey nonne nonne" question on the ground that it expects the answer "Yes", but I am afraid that it expects the answer "No".
Paragraph (b) proposes
to devolve additional powers and functions to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales".
We know that the hon. Member has in mind this proposal in a devolutionary sense, but for most people reading it, it suggests giving more power to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Would any good Scot or Welshman want to give more power to the Government or the Minister?
Paragraph (d) states
to have complete independence".
I want to go into this, because this is very cruel of the Liberal Party, as the one group which could not possibly


answer that question at all is the group which one might expect to support it.
The one group which could not possibly answer the fourth question is the Scottish National Party—and I have learned this morning that another is the Welsh National Party, Plaid Cymru—because it does not know what it means. The hon. Member for Carmarthen was quoted in the House as saying that it meant political separation, administrative separation, financial separation but not economic separation. That was followed by the word "Laughter" in brackets. I put the problem to the Scottish National Party six weks ago as a tiny question which I popped into its lap. I asked what it meant by "economic separation". What was the result? A leadership crisis immediately erupted in the party.
The party has never faced this issue. I hesitate to think what would happen with a referendum in six months' time when this little question of mine had this disruptive effect on the party. It did not know the answer. I have been encouraged becaue I noticed that the hon. Member for Hamilton suggested in a letter to the Scotsman this week that this kind of political and historical research should be "left to Mr. Norman Buchan". Helpful as always, I am glad to assist and give advice.
This is the problem which I would ask the hon. Lady to take back to the executive of her party to work out. Can this question be posed by the referendum, if one accepts that there is a single economic entity in Britain, and we now have the word of the present Chairman of the Scottish National Party that the party accepts that Britain is a single economic entity and he tells me that an economic break would be impossible—if one accepts that, and I take it that it is acceptable to the Scottish National Party—

Mrs. Ewing: I see that the hon. Gentleman is giving way before I have asked him to give way. We are now debating the Scottish National Party. I am delighted about that. I will make the answer to the hon. Gentleman perfectly simple. The Scottish National Party is to control everything, every area of decision, every part of the money and revenue, and make every decision on

foreign affairs and defence. I cannot put it more clearly. We have put it in so many ways in the Press, and yet the Minister does not accept it.

Mr. Buchan: We are discussing a referenda Bill and are speaking about paragraph (d) in Clause 1. It is important to show the difficulties. The hon. Lady has still not answered the question; she has not understood the question. This is the real problem. What the members of her party have not understood. I have tried to tell them over the last few weeks—all that it has done has been to make a leadership crisis among them, with them resigning and withdrawing resignations—that everyone accepts that an economic break would be impossible.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen, speaking for Plaid Cymru, and the Chairman of the Scottish National Party, speaking for his party, say that an economic break would not be acceptable, but if one removes political control over that economic entity one is left with less influence, less real control and, therefore, less real independence. Paradoxically, the policy of the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru means less real independence for the Scottish and Welsh people, not more.
This is the dilemma they face. I hope that they have faced the dilemma because it has created a great crisis in the Scottish National Party and, I think, it will cause one in Plaid Cymru. This is the dilemma which is faced by those of us who all our lives have been looking at and considering the devolution problem. This is why we understood this problem. The Scottish National Party leadership never understood it. Once one removes the control one is faced with fewer options and less independence.
This is why we reject the Scottish National Party policy of separatism, because it is hostile to the democracy of the Scottish people and hostile to the wellbeing of the Scottish people. For instance, within my own constituency there is the Rootes factory. Were it not for the fact that the Government can direct industry from the Midlands out to areas such as Scotland by using the public purse and giving money and by the i.d.c. policy, there would be no Rootes factory for my workers. So I


must reject the Nationalist policy in the interests of the people in the constituency. One rejects it in the interests of the wellbeing of the people, for these economic factors are all part of democracy and they are not opposed to the general purpose of the Bill in so far as it is related to democracy, and there are few democratic options open to people who are unemployed or who are forced to emigrate. The policy of the Scottish National Party would inevitably lead to a satellite and inferior position for Scotland within the economy, which is both a democratic problem and in the interests of the wellbeing of the Scottish people.
That is why this proposed referendum cannot even be answered in the affirmative by the very group which, one would have thought, could have answered "Yes" to Clause 1(1,d).

Mrs. Ewing: On a point of order. Could you give me some guidance, Mr. Speaker? I understood that the subject of the debate was the referendum Bill, and that was why I did not go into the policy of the Scottish National Party.

Mr. William Hamilton: Just as well.

Mrs. Ewing: If I had thought that it would have been in order to defend the Scottish National Party's policies I should have been delighted to defend them, but I thought the debate was about the Bill. Now the Under-Secretary is talking about the policies of the Scottish National Party. Am I allowed to defend them?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady had her chance to defend them when she spoke. If the Under-Secretary is out of order I will call him to order, but he is arguing against the proposed referendum. Also, there are still many hon. Members wanting to speak.

Mr. Buchan: I understand the difficulty of defending the indefensible.
I should like now to have a quick look at what we are left with, since most people would reject the first choice—most people, from the Prime Minister down—because we all want to improve the structure of government, and most people would reject the second choice, the proposal to devolve additional powers and functions upon the Secretary of State, because that would appear to be merely

a proposal to hand over increased powers to the Secretary of State, and no good democrat would want to do that.
There has been an increase in understanding in Scotland that the Leader of the Liberals, at any rate, rejects the Scottish National Party's position on the fourth proposal and we reject it. The third proposal, in Clause 1(1,c), by curious coincidence happens to be also the policy of the Liberal Party. I am not saying that there is anything more than coincidence in that. I have been long enough in this place to know that these coincidences happen with astonishing frequency, but this happens to be the policy of the Liberal Party.
What does it mean? "Federal status". What does that mean? The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) pointed out some of the difficulties of the taxation question and the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton showed in the House the weakness of the proposal, and drew further attention to it in a letter in the Scotsman this week, by asking the Leader of the Liberal Party whether it means a blocking quarter or whether it means equal votes. This is a problem which arises. I wish people would raise with themselves these matters and do their own thinking instead of letting the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton ask me to do their thinking for them. The problem is, a federal Government composed of four units, one of which is several times larger than the rest put together—four or five times larger than the rest put together. Does democracy consist of giving each State a vote, or does democracy consist rather in thinking in terms of the people and their having one vote, as it were, among four? This is a problem which arises, and that is why she stumbled on the question of the blocking quarter, because she realised that this difficulty does arise.
There is a great difference between this and the Federal Government in America, for example, where there are 50 states, and a grouping of small states can balance a big state, a big state can balance another big state, or a small state can balance another small state. This balancing can be achieved with 50 states, but with four states, one of which is many times larger than the three others put together, enormous difficulties arise for democracy. The hon.


Member for Hamilton would say that Scotland should have equal rights. What she is really saying there is that a Scotsman is worth 10 Englishmen. A Welshman would be worth even more. I am not that kind of patriot. Proud as I am of Scotland, I cannot accept 10 to 1; 2 to 1 perhaps, but not 10 to 1.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker is English; the hon. Gentleman must come to order.

Mr. Buchan: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I have always understood that there was perhaps a little bit of Welsh blood in the Speaker, but perhaps I had better leave that.
We are left with the impossibility of even the most enthusiastic separatist being able to vote for the fourth question. They are now beginning to realise the problems with which they are faced in economic separatism.
We are left with paragraph (c), which even hon. Members who have been involved in devolution cannot properly understand and explain. I am not saying that it is inexplicable, but we have not yet worked it out. It is insulting to the Scottish people to suggest that they are to be asked to pass opinions before the facts have been ascertained. Is it fair to my lads in Rootes to say to them that they will be asked to pass an Act of Separation when I cannot tell them whether or not it will mean jobs for them? We know perfectly well why this is. We have for a long time been trying to produce the facts, but they are difficult to produce. The right way to approach this is to do what we have done and set up a Constitutional Commission to find out.
I now come to the greatest weakness in the referendum. Paragraph (b) confers more powers on the Secretary of State, and paragraph (c) is concerned with federalism. But what is in between? The really important area of debate is in the cracks in the referendum. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) cannot be here today, and neither can many other thinkers on this subject. The basic argument has been on the cracks in the referendum, to which no reference is made. If a fifth question were to be included, to cover the crack, the matter would be made even more complex. Hence the

argument that we believe that the facts and an outline of the position must come first, before the decision is made.
Another difficulty in the referendum is this. Who is to disseminate the information about the referendum? With a free Press, will the Liberal Party decide how much space should be given to every question in every newspaper, or will it be left to the Government to do it? The hon. Member for Carmarthen said that he did not trust the Government to do it. How will it be done? There cannot be equality of democracy unless democracy extends all round, and this is the great weakness. Already there is an imbalance in this way in our democracy.

An Hon. Member: That is a specious argument.

Mr. Buchan: It is not a specious argument, as the hon. Gentleman would know if he understood the nature of democracy. Democracy is not only a structural matter but is also concerned with influence. Governments can be encouraged or inhibited by newspapers. If Governments can be affected in this way, so can people, as we well know.
The case for the referendum was amply put by speaker after speaker. I have shown the weaknesses of the referendum. The supporters of the Bill assert that its purpose is to let the Scots and the Welsh say how they wish to be governed. I, too, believe that the Scots and the Welsh should be masters of their own destiny, but I believe that this purpose is not served by inviting them to make their choice blindfold—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) knows my record on this. He has no need to laugh.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I presume that I am allowed to smile.

Mr. Buchan: Yes, and it could not come from a better man.
It is to cast light on what is complex and obscure in these matters that the Government have taken the wholly unprecedented step of setting on foot an independent study by a highly responsible Commission of the way in which the present machinery of central Government operates in relation to Scotland. Wales, and the other countries and regions of the United Kingdom. This is a historic event of the first magnitude,


and it is of importance and enormous significance in the evolution of democratic government in these islands. Even now, I wonder whether hon. Members have really yet realised the possibilities that have been opened up.
I know that there has been some criticism of the terms of reference of the Commission announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday. Attention has been drawn to the fact that in the provisional formula which the Prime Minister gave in the debate on the Address on 30th October, the Commission was invited to consider "what changes…are desirable" in the present functions of the central Legislature and Government or otherwise in present constitutional and economic relationships; whereas the final version invites the Commission to consider "whether any changes are desirable". I do not myself see any material difference, because nothing in the first form of words would have prevented the Commission from reporting that it had found no case for any such changes. The reason for altering the wording was, quite simply, to avoid the appearance of asking the Commission to adopt a more radical approach as regards the various parts of the United Kingdom proper, as opposed to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. But it remains entirely open to the Commission to do just that. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) criticised it in the way that he did.
I should myself have read more significance into the insertion in the final form of words of a reference to
'the prosperity and good government of our people under the Crown".
I would concede that the insertion of the last three words may preclude the Commission from recommending the establishment of a republican form of government in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland. But that is a different matter, and I take leave to doubt whether it is of the slightest significance in the present context.
Certainly in all other respects the Commission will be free to explore every possible modification of the present arrangements that may be put to it or that its members may themselves think up. The alternatives set out in the present Bill, including federation and separation, are

only some of the possible courses. The Commission will be free to consider all possible means of enabling the Scottish—and Welsh—people to participate effectively in decision-making at central government level.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Who are to be the members of the Commission?

Mr. Buchan: An announcement of the names of members of the Commission will be made soon.
This could, for example, involve such matters as meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Scotland; the institution of some parallel representative body in Scotland, to carry out there some of the tasks at present carried out at Westminster; and the scope for further development of the Select Committee sys tern in relation to Scottish affairs, on lines suggested by a number of hon. Members
The Commission will be able to consider whether there is anything to be gained by the transfer of yet further functions to the Secretary of State.

Mr. W. Baxter: Are we discussing the Royal Commission? If so, I would like to know who will select the members.

Mr. Buchan: The short answer is that its members will be selected by the Prime Minister and the Government.
It will be able to consider to what extent there could and should be delegation to senior officers in Scotland and Wales of the administration in these countries of functions remaining with other Ministers; and also whether the present pattern of the nationalised industries is right, with electricity and local passenger transport separately organised in Scotland while the others are on a Great Britain basis.
All these alternatives covering the whole spectrum up to—and including—financial and economic separation are open to study, and when the Commission has completed its epoch-making task, then the time for decision will have arrived—for decision taken in a full knowledge of what the various alternatives imply for the future.
I do not believe that a decision offered to people who are not in at any rate reasonable possession of the facts is a decision. I accept the arguments which have been advanced to show that only


where a clear and understandable alternative exists is there a case for a referendum. I think that the course we have set in hand of establishing a Commission to investigate the facts for the first time in British history will of itself go towards answering the needs of the people of Scotland and Wales and of my comrades in England also.

3.25 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I understand that the Under-Secretary is a renowned Scottish collector of folk songs and folklore. Having heard him today, I can well believe it, because he spent most of his time in the realms of mythology rather than in dealing with the merits or demerits of the Bill.
It has been said that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) is doing something revolutionary today. What he is doing is very simple. He is giving the House an opportunity to pass a Bill which, if and when it became law, would enable the people of Scotland and of Wales to give an indication themselves of what kind of Government they want. If that is revolutionary, so be it, but I believe that most people will think that it is an elementary proposition of democracy.
Those who are interested in the history of democracy will know that this form is probably the oldest form of democratic expression. When any major matter came up for discussion or decision in Athens, it was eventually decided by a show of hands of the populace in the market place: it was a direct expression of the will of the people.
The Under-Secretary said that he was against any weighting in favour of different countries in any voting procedures. Yet he is a Member of a Government who have applied for membership of the Common Market. He should understand, if he does not know it already, that in voting procedures in the Common Market countries there is weighting in favour of certain countries.
We are told that we cannot enter into this discussion without knowing the facts. The "facts" have suddenly become all-important. Was there a Commission set up to discover the facts before an application was made by the Conservative

Government for Britain to join the Common Market? Was there a Commission set up to discover the facts before the Labour Government made an application to join the Common Market? Not at all, because they took a political judgment. That is how democracy works. We shall not be put off by all this nonsense of saying, "We must find the facts". The facts are known.
Much of the debate has been spent, when people have discussed the Bill, on general arguments against referenda as a means of government. Nobody has come anywhere near advancing the arguments in a logical, massive way as did some of the opponents of referenda during the great constitutional debates in 1909–11. I have been astonished today to hear the Conservative Front Bench so opposed to referenda. In the constitutional crises in 1909–11 the Conservative Party as a party put forward a referendum as the very means of deciding important constitutional issues.
Perhaps it will suffice for my purpose if I quote what the Conservative Leader of the time, A. J. Balfour, said in the House in February, 1911:
The Referendum, at all events, has this enormous advantage, that it does isolate one problem from the complex questions connected with keeping a Government in office, and with other measures which it wants to carry out and with other questions of foreign and domestic policy. It asks the country not, 'do you say that this or that body of men should hold the reins of office? ', but. 'do you approve of this or that way of dealing with a great question in which you are interested?' This is a very plain proposition…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1911; Vol. 21, c. 1758.]
This was the proposal of the Conservative Party, but like chameleons, it changes the colour to suit the situation. This was the view put forward not only by the Leader, but by the whole of the Conservative Party in those arguments.
The arguments against referenda were put in a more impressive way in those days than in the arguments that we heard today. Mr. Asquith, as he then was, in the debates made it clear that he was opposed to referenda as a means of government. I generally agree with the views that he then expressed, but he made this very important exception:
…I say quite distinctly that I reserve the question of the appropriateness and the practicability of what is called the Referendum as possibly the least objectionable means of


untying the knot in some extreme and exceptional constitutional entanglement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March. 1910; Vol. 15, c. 1173.]

Mr. Ogden: Mr. Ogden rose—

Mr. Hooson: I will give way in a moment. Today we are discussing a very difficult constitutional entanglement of the greatest importance to this country. So far as I know, all great authorities who have looked into it and debated it have always, whatever their views on referenda, reserved it as perhaps the only or the least objectionable way of settling this kind of problem.

Mr. Ogden: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I am sure that he will agree that not even Asquith or Balfour agreed that the majority of the population should be excluded from a great constitutional issue. Yet the sponsors of the Bill, including Liberal Members from four English constituencies have, after great consideration excluded England from the Bill.

Mr. Hooson: We believe that the people of Wales should be able to decide the future of Wales and that the people of Scotland should be able to decide the future of Scotland. But if the majority in England did not agree, that should not frustrate the will of the people of Wales or Scotland.
I come now to the first and, I think, the most important argument in favour of the Bill. We are in the midst of a constitutional issue of a kind that we have not met within the United Kingdom, save for Ireland, since the 18th century.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hooson: I will in a moment. It is perhaps a sobering thought that the only great constitutional change in the United Kingdom within the last three centuries involving any territorial considerations has been brought about not by referenda, not by Parliament, but by force of arms. It is vitally important to remember that sanguine hopes have been expressed here today that if a certain view is taken by the people of Scotland or Wales the rest of the country will fully accede. This did not happen with Ireland. Although the will of the people there was obvious and plain for everybody to see and was expressed through Parlia-

mentary representation, the will of the people of Ireland and the will of the majority in this country was frustrated by those who saw it their duty to keep the country together. In most civilised countries, one finds that on major constitutional issues of this character it is not sufficient merely to work through representative democracy, as we know it; there must occasionally be resort in exceptional circumstances to a referendum. The circumstances that we are considering today are exceptional.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. and learned Member appears to be trying to erect into a general principle of Liberal policy the view that a referendum should be held when a major constitutional issue faces the country. Why did not his party propose a similar referendum when they put forward the proposal that we should associate ourselves with the European Economic Community? Did he not think that that was a major constitutional issue for the country? I suggest to him that this is a simple device, quite without principle, brought forward in support of a narrow party policy.

Mr. Hooson: If the hon. Member had spoken from knowledge and not from ignorance he would know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party proposed a referendum on the Common Market.

Mr. James Davidson: The hon. Member should do his homework.

Mr. Hooson: It is my view and that of most people that this is an unusual constitutional issue in which we should not be hidebound by tradition. It is very rare in our country to be concerned with changes of this character within the country. Therefore we have to see what we have done in relation to other countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West pointed to various precedents and to the introduction by the Labour Party of referenda in different areas where constitutional problems of this kind arose and where people were seeking some kind of emancipation.
The second reason in favour of the Bill is that the issues are clearly formulated and isolated. We have heard the most specious arguments against them. It has been said that there are too many


issues—four—and that it would be simpler if there were two. Imagine what would have happened if we had introduced a Bill with only one alternative—one question or two questions. Does anybody believe that there would not have been exactly the same opposition? They would have said that the issues were not properly formulated and that their point of view was not expressed. This is a specious argument to try to destroy the Bill.
The hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) put her finger on the point when she said that the Government are in favour of referenda in situations to their liking, when they think that the result would be to their liking, but they fight shy of referenda when they think that the results might not be to their liking.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Has it escaped my hon. Friend's notice that in the "Fearless" proposals the suggestion is that a very complicated set of constitutional proposals should be put by a form of referendum to all the people of Rhodesia to see whether they accept them? Whether we agree with the "Fearless" proposal, which is not relevant to the argument, is my hon. Friend aware that the Government think it proper to put highly complicated matters to the vast African majority in Central Africa but not apparently to the people of Wales and Scotland?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There can be only one intervention at a time.

Mr. Hooson: The criticism has been made, on the one hand, that having four questions complicates the issue and, on the other hand, that there ought to be more than four questions. The Under-Secretary of State said that important matters arose out of points which were omitted from the questions. He is arguing in favour of an extended referendum. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. These issues are simple. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] People have merely to indicate a preference, a choice. It is no part of the duty of the common people to put, as it were, their general inclination into statutory form. That is a matter for Parliament to consider, but the general

trend is for the common people to indicate, and that is what they are invited to do in the referendum.

Mr. Buchan: My point was not that four alternatives were put forward, and not even that the choice was directed towards one of the four alternatives, but that at least two were meaningless in the sense that they could mean almost all things to all men. There was not even unanimity on what the federalism choice meant. It is not at all clear what the last choice meant. The "Fearless" proposals were properly spelt out and defined. The best comparisons are Gibraltar and Newfoundland. In Gibraltar there was a clear choice between staying with Britain and accepting the specific and definite proposals tabled by the Spanish Government in May, 1966. In Newfoundland a commission was established to set out the facts before the choice. My criticism is that opinions are put before facts or definition here.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman, like his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, grossly underestimates the intelligence and good sense of the ordinary people of Scotland and England. If he is implying that the people of Scotland and Wales are incapable of understanding these questions and giving a general view and indication of the way in which they want their country governed, he grossly underestimates them.

Mr. MacArthur: This is a most important point. The hon. and learned Gentleman may be aware that a recent poll showed that 64 per cent. of Scots wanted education to be run in Scotland. The fact is that it is already completely run from within Scotland. What validity would he place on that sort of reply?

Mr. Hooson: Many of the arguments we hear today are arguments against democracy itself. They seem to say that the electorate is incapable of forming a view. These were the arguments used in the 18th and 19th centuries against the extension of the franchise to enable people to decide for themselves the right representatives. It was said that the whole process should be left in the hands of an enlightened oligarchy. On the other hand, there is the Marxist argument


in favour of an elite which is called and has specially made a study so that it can lead the proletariat, which cannot be trusted to decide for itself some of the major matters.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton) rose—

Mr. MacArthur: Mr. MacArthur rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving);: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must indicate to whom he is giving way.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. and learned Gentleman has turned the whole Marxist argument on its head. Marx never argued that the proletariat could not run society. The whole point of Marxism was that it could. The theory of the élite came later.

Mr. Hooson: I shall not contend with the hon. Gentleman on the question of detailed knowledge of Marxism and its application. I do not want to spend the whole debate on it, but I understood that Marx thought that the proletariat should be guided and led.
The third point in favour of the Bill is that the issues involved have been debated up and down Wales and Scotland for a long time. The arguments for and against different forms of self-government, independence, or maintaining the status quo have all been adumbrated at length. Therefore, it is an issue on which the people are reasonably informed and they will decide by inclination or hunch rather than by economic population.
When right hon. and hon. Members say that we have not sufficient facts, let us consider their record. They nationalised important industries. Did they set up commissions beforehand to say what the results would be? Did they say, "We must have regard to all the implications before we do this"? They did not. They went forward on a programme of socialism, and nationalisation was part of it.
In exactly the same way, most of the great decisions of our day are taken on the basis of political judgment. Facts are important in the formulation of that judgment, but when the Government of the day are trying to escape responsibility, to fight a rearguard action, to

gain time, they always trot out the argument, "The facts are not fully known." It is an excuse for doing nothing. The Government know that perfectly well. They know that the people of Wales and Scotland are well informed on this matter and quite capable of answering the simple questions posed in the Bill.
If it is thought that the questions for the referendum could be improved, it can be done in Committee. If it is thought that they could be simplified, it can be done in Committee. If it is thought that another question should be added, it can be done in Committee. To suggest that the people of Wales and Scotland are incapable of replying to the questions in the referendum on the basis of knowledge is to insult them.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the advantages of a referendum on this or any other issue, such as the Common Market, is that people become a great deal more aware of the facts?

Mr. Hooson: I agree. Indeed, I think that I am in general agreement that on non-constitutional issues there is a case for referenda for smaller areas, as in Switzerland. If we had Scottish and Welsh Parliaments, referenda might frequently be used within smaller areas than the United Kingdom.
My fourth point is that this proposal would allow the people of Scotland and Wales clearly to state their views on constitutional change. In a General Election, they are offered a mixed package of policies. When people vote for a particular party, they may do so for a number of reasons. They may agree with another party, however, on the constitutional issue. The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards) knows that many people in the Labour Party in Wales are in favour of a Parliament of some kind for Wales.

Mr. William Edwards: Mr. William Edwards indicated assent.

Mr. Hooson: Therefore, a Socialist in Wales is in a dilemma. He may want to vote for the Labour Party's social and economic policies. On the other hand, he may want to vote for another party on the constitutional issue. Many voters are in that dilemma. They include members of all parties. Their vote for a particular party at a General


Election depends upon a variety of reasons. Therefore, when a constitutional issue of this kind raises its head, it is a good thing to isolate it from the general package offered to voters during a General Election.
Often, Governments get out of their obligations by saying, "People did not vote for us on this particular issue but for the general package we offered, so that we can put this promise back in the list of priorities." It is feasible and normal to accept a general package proposition with regard to general policies but it is important to isolate a problem of a constitutional nature.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give an example? Earlier, the Irish referendum last year on proportional representation was mentioned. A simple "Yes" or "No" was required. One of the greatest influences was which way the rural vote was going to go because of the situation in relation to agricultural prices, and so forth. That overruled the whole attitude of the electors towards the referendum.

Mr. Hooson: I do not accept that as true. It has been put as an explanation but I think it has been generally rejected.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I was there. I saw it.

Mr. Hooson: Even if the hon. Gentleman had been in my constituency and had expressed a view on its problems, I would not necessarily accept it because he happened to be there. I disagree with his interpretation.
Fifthly, the result of a referendum would not bind the Government, nor the Constitutional Commission, in any way. Many arguments today have been advanced on the basis that we are trying to govern by referendum. That is not the object of the Bill. In certain countries government is carried on to some extent by referendum. In Switzerland, for example, laws can be enacted by referendum. In Australia certain matters are decided and become law as a result of a referendum. But the proposition in the Bill is nothing of the kind.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman is hopelessly confusing the respective rôles of the Government and Dr. Gallup.

Mr. Hooson: Not at all. The hon. Gentleman must scrum up his knowledge of this matter. The constitutional referendum in Newfoundland had three or four questions, but they were similar to the kind of questions in this proposed referendum. In certain countries referenda are actually a means of government, but we are not proposing that. What we are inviting the Government to do is to allow the people of Wales and Scotland to indicate the general desire, the general trend, and this they are perfectly capable of doing. Once they have done so, the Government would have to consider the result.
This would be a great help to the work of the Constitutional Commission, because, however, learned and expert its members may be, they are not ordinary people and their ideas may be contrary to the ideas of ordinary people. It would help the Commission if it could know that the majority of the people of Scotland were in favour of this trend, that the majority of people in Wales were in favour of that. No one will argue that that would not be a great help to the Commission in deciding how to set about its work, what its priorities should be, and what issues it should consider.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) or the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie)—that it would be an irresponsible decision and might, therefore, lead to an irresponsible result. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that it would be not a governmental decision but an opinion. Thirdly and more importantly, he has misunderstood the purpose of the Commission. Among other things, it is to establish the facts and so on of the nature of the structure of government, not to pre-empt its own inquiry by finding out what the decision should be first.

Mr. Hooson: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. What we want is a clear indication from the people of Scotland and Wales on a constitutional issue which has been isolated for this specific purpose. That would be a great help to the Commission.
It has been said that the country as a whole has been against referenda and


that they are not in the British tradition. We have to acknowledge that from the day when Henry Tudor marched from Wales via Bosworth to England we have witnessed an evolutionary process towards highly centralised government. No government in the world is as highly centralised as ours. In many ways, this was perfectly natural when Britain was developing overseas and London was not simply the capital city of these islands but the centre of a vast empire and the trading and financial capital of the world.
That is no longer the case. No longer do tens of thousands of Scotsmen, Irishmen, Welshmen and Englishmen go over the seas anually to populate the colonies as they used to do. The wheel has gone full circle, and for the first time in our modern history we in the United Kingdom, whether we like it or not, are driven back entirely upon our own devices, but we are lumbered with a system of administration and government which in many ways is inadequate and inappropriate to our present needs. All the superstructure and paraphernalia of Empire and its centralised control from London is still there, but the Empire itself is not.
In these circumstances it is entirely natural that in Scotland and in Wales there should be a new and increased manifestation of national feeling, national identity and national awareness. It is perfectly natural that people there and in the regions of England resent excessive control from the centre and want greater power to manage their own affairs much closer to the people than is possible under present arrangements.
One of the very greatest problems of our time is how to come to terms with this perfectly natural movement. How do we preserve the obvious economic, social and other advantages of a unified economy whilst at the same time allowing to the full the undoubted right to be different? This is what this debate is really concerned with. In solving this problem, the first essential is to discover as nearly as we can what the ordinary folk in Britain, with their deep and profound political instinct, really want.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable this to be done in Scotland and in Wales. We have no objection whatsoever to a similar process being undertaken in

England, but we are concerned in the Bill with the people of Wales and of Scotland manifesting their general desire in the matter. It is very difficult—I am sure it will be difficult—for the common people of Wales and Scotland, therefore, to appreciate the attitude of the Government—

Mr. William Edwards: On a point of order. I have always heard you say, Mr. Speaker, that it is your duty to protect the rights of minorities in the House. This afternoon we have had four speeches of Front Bench length from minority parties. Is it not time that we reconsidered this rule of the House in order to protect the vast majority of back benchers on this side?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I asked for reasonably brief speeches. My appeal has not been responded to.

Mr. Hooson: As I am winding up for my party, I have followed the usual precedents of the House. I do not see why minority parties in this respect should be treated any differently from majority parties.

Mr. Speaker: My appeal for brief speeches was addressed to minority parties and to majority parties.

Mr. Hooson: I appreciate your viewpoint, Sir. I was responding to the objection raised by the hon. Member for Merioneth.
It is widely thought that the true reason for the objection by the Government and by the Conservative Opposition officially to the Bill, as opposed to the support that might come from individual Members, is their fear of its consequences, because they do not want the ordinary people of Wales and Scotland to express their view clearly. Whereas they can dispense with what they call Gallup polls and opinion polls and can brush them aside, they could not ignore an official referendum of this type. They do not want to be placed in the position where they must have regard, not to what they think is good for the people, but to what the people themselves think is good for themselves. That is why they have resorted to this attitude today of trying to find any kind of specious argument to prevent the Bill from going through. If they succeed, it will be to their eternal discredit.

Mr. David Steel: Mr. David Steel rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: In the two minutes left to me before the time for debate is concluded today, I wish to say this quite firmly. The Bill offers the people of Scotland and Wales a pig in a poke, and nothing better. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson), in bringing the Bill forward without telling the country what he means

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUS TRIAL INJURIES) (AMEND MENT) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

by a federal government, is utterly confusing the public. I deeply regret that, in the one and a half hours that the Liberal Party has taken in the debate, the hon. Gentleman has not taken the opportunity to explain it.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is—

Mr. David Steel: On a point of order. I beg—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman nearly lost the Motion.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The House divided: Ayes 13, Noes 81.

Division No. 71.]
AYES
[3.59 p.m.


Baxter, William
Hooson, Emlyn
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Bessell, Peter
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)



Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)
Mr. Eric Lubbock and


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Mr. David Steel.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy





NOES


Albu, Austen
Garrett, W. E.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Ogden, Eric


Bell, Ronald
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
O'Malley, Brian


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Oram, Albert E.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Hannan, William
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Buchan, Norman
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pentland, Norman


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)
Heffer, Eric S.
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Carmichael, Neil
Howle, W.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Chapman, Donald
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)
Rees, Merlyn


Coe, Denis
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Roebuck, Roy


Dewar, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Lawson, George
Stodart, Anthony


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Taverne, Dick


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Eadie, Alex
MacArthur, Ian
Tuck, Raphael


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackie, John
White, Mrs. Eirene


Emery, Peter
Maclennan, Robert
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Marquand, David
Younger, Hn. George


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Millan, Bruce



Forrester, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fowler, Gerry
Molloy, William
Mr. A. H. MacDonald and


Freeson, Reginald
Monro, Hector
Mr. John Fraser.


Gardner, Tony

ESTATE DUTY (SURVIVING SPOUSE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 28th March.

BORDERS DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

HOUSING (LOCAL AUTHORITY CONTRIBUTIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday. 14th March.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 28th February.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL

Considered in Committee. [Progress. 7th February.]

Question again proposed,

That the Chairman do report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill reported without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

RENT ACT 1968 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

NURSERY SCHOOLS (PARENTAL CONTRIBUTIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 13th June.

LIVE HARE COURSING (ABOLITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

RAILWAYS (NOTTINGHAM- RUGBY LINE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Tony Gardner: After our long discourse on democracy in Scotland and Wales I am sorry to have to return to the more mundane affairs of England and to detain my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary here a little longer on a Friday afternoon, but I am grateful for the opportunity of raising in the House the decision by the Minister of Transport to close what remains of the Great Central Railway between Nottingham, Arkwright Street, and Rugby Central. This is probably the last chapter in a very long and a very sad story. I appreciate that what has led to this final decision is not within the responsibilities of my hon. Friend or, indeed, the present Government, for this has a very long history indeed.
Some local people think it has its roots in the old rivalry between the Midland Railway and the old Great Central, and because of some of the things which have happened over the last 20 years I am convinced that there is something in that argument. But, be that as it may, the Great Central Railway, in its heyday, provided a first-class service to us in the East Midlands. There was a good route between London, Nottingham, Sheffield, and Manchester. There were communications to the east at Nottingham (Victoria). There was a


very valuable route much used by holidaymakers from York, Sheffield and Nottingham to the South and South-West. It served the growing towns and villages around the cities of Nottingham and Leicester.
Over the years British Railways first of all emasculated the line by topping and tailing it and then by gradually reducing the services, and they have now, apparently, secured a decision from my right hon. Friend to close it altogether. Although there was a reprieve a little while ago after an inquiry it was quite obvious to most of us who live in the locality that this was really nearly the end of the story.
Of course, I could not possibly challenge the figures of passenger usage which were brought before the Transport Users Consultative Committee when the matter was first raised by British Railways. Nor could I challenge the figures which British Railways has, no doubt, presented to my right hon. Friend, and which have led him to take this present decision. However, I still believe that this is one of the local tragedies which might not have happened and need not have happened.
The East Midlands is one of the most rapidly growing areas in the country. This is recorded very firmly in the Report of the East Midlands Planning Council. I believe that if British Railways really had sought the potential extra business which the growing population might have brought, the line might have been viable today. There could have been a direct link with the main line at Rugby (Midland). That was not beyond all possibility. There could have been a link with the other main line in Nottingham. Many years ago some of us were urging that British Railways should introduce fast diesel rail cars, and they were introduced eventually, but by then passenger usage had declined and it was very difficult to attract people back to the line. It might have been possible, had that been done, as many people urged, to have provided for the very many commuters, students, workers, shoppers, people seeking entertainment or going to places of worship from the villages around into the big cities of Leicester and Nottingham.
The opposite occurred. The services deteriorated just as the population was

growing most rapidly and left people in the area with no alternative but to use the already overcrowded roads. Of course, the worst hardship will be to people in the villages on the line between Leicester and Rugby Central. My own constituency is an example of the way things have developed. East Leake and Ruddington were two of the areas chosen as nodal parishes of population growth to take the growing population, spreading out from the City of Nottingham. Health centres, shops and so on were planned, and the population grew apace, but, as the population was growing, first Ruddington station was closed and now the station in my own village of East Leake is due to close.
At the time these decisions were being taken new housing estates were going up. Railway stations in the past were often quite a distance from villages and town centres, but, because of the demand for new housing land, the town centres have moved, and more and more new housing development surrounds the old and still existing railway stations. But the decision was taken, and the people of Ruddington in particular, now swelled to thousands, struggle to get across the three bridges over the river Trent into Nottingham every morning and back again in the evening.
The services that remained after the old Great Central line was emasculated were hardly ever advertised. So little were they advertised that the Great Central Association had to publish its own timetables and issue them to would-be passengers. Recently I approached British Railways management to secure better publicity, and one of the strange ironies in this situation is that only a few weeks before the Minister announced his decision British Railways was distributing leaflets around the villages advertising the services.
I accept that railway closures have to come and that some railway lines ought perhaps never to have been constructed, but I hope that my hon. Friend will also accept that we must come to terms with the growing commuter problem. The railway line never had a chance since British Railways was determined almost from the day of nationalisation to secure its closure, and I ask my hon. Friend even at this late hour to advise his right hon. Friend to reconsider this matter. If


he cannot do this, I should like to raise three specific issues.
The Minister in his letter of 23rd January, 1969, to the British Railways Board says this:
And while he accepts that travellers between East Leake and Nottingham will have alternatives by bus taking longer than the existing train journey, which may be affected by traffic delays at the approaches to Nottingham, he is satisfied that road works already in hand will lead to improvements.
I do not know what these road works are. There has been a great deal of local controversy, and a deputation from the City of Nottingham recently went to the Ministry to demand the building of a new bridge across the River Trent. If this is the nature of the road works to which he refers in his letter, I ask him, whatever may happen in the future, not to close the line until the extra bridge is built and until the roads are capable of carrying the extra traffic. I also ask him to advise British Railways that the existing track should not be destroyed. With the growth of population, I and many other people living in the area are convinced that a much more radical solution to the transport problems of the area must be found before long.
Finally, will the Minister at long last accede to the request which I have made on a number of occasions in the House, and commission a proper passenger transport study in the East Midlands? The Minister has the power under the recent Transport Act to provide for a passenger transport authority which could reconsider and perhaps refurbish the existing road and rail services in the area.
The matters which I have raised are purely local ones, but they have national implications. If we go on relying on private road transport to carry people to and from work, entertainment and all their other affairs, in the big cities, the big cities will slowly grind to a halt. There is a great deal of evidence to show that road traffic increases in direct ratio to road construction. I believe that good, cheap railway services can still help, but only if they are tailored to fit the needs of the increasing population.
Despite the abuse heaped on the Transport Bill while it was proceeding through the House, it envisaged a great deal of new thinking about public transport.

I hope that the Ministry will not allow this initiative to founder on the present financial difficulties of British Railways. Though, at present, too few people use the railways for local travel, it does not follow that many more cannot be persuaded to do so provided that services are tailored to their needs.

4.20 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport Mr. Neil Carmichael): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) for raising this subject this afternoon. It gives me the opportunity to explain the Minister's decision to consent to the Railways Board's proposal to withdraw rail passenger services between Nottingham and Rugby. Several hon. Members made strong representations before the decision was taken, and I know that they are concerned about the effect of the decision on their constituents. My hon. Friend has been extremely vociferous in his claim for his constituents, and the fact that he has raised the matter on the Adjournment is a further indication that he is continuing his efforts. I need hardly say that all aspects of the proposal, social, economic and industrial, received the most careful consideration before the final decision was taken.
This line from Nottingham to Rugby is the last remaining section of the old and historic Great Central main line. As such, it has a special place in the feelings of those who are keenly interested in railway history. But decisions on closures cases cannot be taken on the basis of nostalgic memories. We must look at present and probable future needs and decide whether retention of an un-remunerative service would really represent value for money.
The great rail network established in Britain for the most part in the 19th century was built in days before buses and cars were available as means of mass transport. The Government have made it clear that they believe that a substantial railway system will be needed for some time to come. This has been the basis of the plan for a stabilised network and of the scheme for the payment of grants for the retention of certain unremunerative, but socially necessary, services. But, as we all know, the numbers travelling by rail have declined


greatly in recent years and the vast majority of people now travel by road. Moreover, the old rail network was built by competing private companies with the result that services between adjacent towns were often duplicated on separate routes. Such is the case between Leicester and Nottingham, which are connected by both the former Great Central and Midland lines. The decline in usage of the former Great Central line and the availability of alternative services were among the considerations which led the then Minister and the Chairman of the Railways Board to decide not to include the Nottingham-Rugby line among those scheduled for development for passenger services when the Network Map was published in March, 1967.
The general pattern of travel over this line is within the two sections Nottingham-Leicester and Leicester-Rugby, although there is also a fairly small amount of travel between these sections of the line. I do not think it can be seriously disputed that the number of people using this service is small. It is also worth bearing in mind that Rugby has a good rail service to Birmingham.
For travel between Nottingham, Loughborough and Leicester, the service on the Midland line provides an excellent alternative, and I think that this is generally recognised. There is, however, a particular problem relating to East Leake which is only served by trains on the former Great Central line. The position of present railways users at East Leake was examined with special care. Most of these regular users—18 of them when the case was considered by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee—travel to and from Nottingham. The alternative bus journey will take longer than their present rail journey but bearing in mind the numbers involved and the potential savings, the Minister decided that the degree of inconvenience could not be regarded as unreasonable. It has, however, been argued that these bus journeys will be much extended because of traffic congestion on the southern outskirts of Nottingham. This contention was very carefully examined. It appears that this traffic congestion occurs during very limited peak periods in the morning and evening. Investigations have shown that some of the

regular users of the rail service from East Leake travel before the traffic congestion has started while some others travel at times when this traffic congestion is not at its worst. As my hon. Friend knows, there are firm plans, which are being pressed forward vigorously, for road improvements to alleviate this traffic congestion. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me an opportunity later to get in touch with him about the specific point he raised on the road improvement.
As regards the Leicester-Rugby section, the situation is more difficult as there is no alternative rail service. Moreover, the existing alternative bus services between Rugby and Leicester take substantially longer than the rail service, because they take indirect routes so as to serve small and scattered communities. The Minister has therefore made his consent conditional on the provision of certain additional buses, which will take a more direct route so that the increase in journey time will be less than by the existing bus service. Furthermore, he has stipulated that these buses should serve Leicester, London Road, station, which is on the Midland line, so as to facilitate journeys beyond Leicester to Loughborough and Nottingham, thereby substantially reducing the time which would otherwise be necessary for the longer journeys by bus alone.
Particularly strong representations have been made that a rail passenger service of some sort, no matter how basic, should be retained between Rugby and Leicester. Two main arguments were used in support of this proposition. First, that it was wrong that two such substantial towns as Rugby and Leicester should not be connected by a rail service. Secondly, that there had recently been increased use of the service on this section of line.
It is relevant that Rugby and Leicester are only 20 miles apart by road, and it is very clear that the vast majority of the travel between them is by road. This is typical of what occurs generally throughout the more populated areas. We investigated very carefully, and very recently, the extent to which there has been any increased use of the rail service on this section. The Railways Board has supplied us with census figures for individual weeks in November,


1967, and in April, August and October, 1968. The average number of journeys in each direction on this section on weekdays remains at only just over 100, although the Saturday figures are about 200. I do not think that, on serious reflection, hon. Members would regard my right hon. Friend as justified in retaining a costly rail service for such a small number of travellers at tax payers' expense. We all know that there are many people—often, I venture to say, amongst the most vociferous at protesting at closures—who feel that their community should have a rail passenger service, but never, or hardly ever, use it. If only more of these people would make good use of their rail services when they have them we should all benefit—not least from the improvement in the railways' finances.
This leads me on to the cost of retaining this rail service. As a result of closure, the estimated net annual financial improvement based on direct expenses, less expected loss of earnings and contributory revenue, will be of the order of£100,000 per year. In addition, there will be substantial capital savings on renewals in the next five years. On the other hand, if the Minister had refused to give his consent to closure, and if the present service were retained, the Railways Board would have needed to apply for grant aid at a rate of about£276,000 a year. These grant aid figures are, of course, calculated on the basis recommended by the Joint Steering Group in its report which was annexed to the White Paper on Railway Policy, Cmnd. 3439—that is, on the basis of the total long term cost of a continuing rail service including a due allocation of joint costs. Even a basic service between Leicester and Rugby would require grant aid of over£100,000 a year, since the maintenance costs for bridges and structures are particularly heavy on this section of line. This would mean an annual subsidy from public funds of about£1,000 to each of the present small number of users of this rail service.
Retention of unremunerative rail services is costing the taxpayer large sums of money at a time when there are many unsatisfied claims on the public purse. Although the Minister now has powers

to grant-aid unremunerative passenger services if he considers that they should continue for social or economic reasons, the amount of public money available for this purpose cannot be regardad as limitless if other important, and equally worthy, social services are to receive their fair share of the money, which comes ultimately from the taxpayers' pockets. The Minister, therefore, has to decide whether the costs of retaining a service in terms of grant do or do not outweigh the social and economic benefits it will bring.
In all these circumstances, the Minister considered it right to give his consent to the withdrawal of this passenger service, subject to the provision of the additional bus services I have already referred to.
There remains the question of whether it would be appropriate to retain the formation—that is, the land and structures on which the track is laid—in case it should ever be necessary to reinstate a passenger service over the line. Whilst my right hon. Friend has no statutory powers in this connection, hon. Members will know that under present arrangements the Railways Board does not dispose of route formation without his prior agreement. In this case, I think it will be clear from the facts I have given that the Minister sees no long-term requirement for a rail passenger service over this line. Nor does he think that a modified service over any part of the line could be introduced at an acceptable cost. He therefore sees no reason why he should ask the Railways Board to retain this formation if only for the time being.
My right hon. Friend has also had in mind that an early breaching of the formation at a point north of Rugby would save about£100,000 on a bridge to carry the Midland Links motorway over the present railway line, and I need hardly point out that this is an important additional saving in terms of real resources. The Board has, therefore, been told that there is no objection to its disposing of the formation.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Five o'clock.